2002-08-264013REPS556102002-08-26—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m. and read prayers.Committees55615561556112:31:005561Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee's report entitled Norfolk Island electoral matters.Ordered that the report be printed.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—In 1999 the government sought to amend the Norfolk Island Act 1979 to ensure that only Australians could vote in or stand for election in the Norfolk Island Assembly elections. The Senate rejected the bill and sought greater consultation with the people of Norfolk Island on the matter. It was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories in March 2000.Current electoral arrangements on Norfolk Island raise serious concerns. The franchise for the assembly election is based on residence on Norfolk Island rather than Australian citizenship. There are also requirements for eligibility to vote that are 30 times the period that applies to other parts of Australia. There is a requirement for a residential period of 990 days or 2½ years residence in the previous four years whereas the usual period in Australian states and territories is one month or six months in Tasmania. The result is that some Australian citizens are prevented from voting in Norfolk Island elections and non-Australian citizens are entitled to vote and stand for election. The committee concluded that this was unacceptable.Under the proposed provisions in the rejected 1999 bill, only Australian citizens would have been eligible to enrol and stand for election to the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. Six months was proposed as the qualifying period for enrolment for an ordinary resident and the enrolment rights of those currently on the electoral roll would have been preserved. Since Australian law does not require a person to renounce any other citizenship, dual citizenship combined with the grandfather clause would have provided security of voting rights and existing citizenship for all those currently entitled to vote.The Norfolk Island Assembly, which gave evidence to the committee, argued the special nature of Norfolk Island's traditions and culture, as well as the concerns felt by islanders that these may be threatened by allowing relative newcomers a voice in island affairs. The committee was not persuaded that there was either a proven risk or a need for special protection, particularly when such protection entrenched in electoral law served to deny a basic human right to a group of citizens. Moreover, the committee argued that because the role of the Norfolk Island Assembly extended well beyond simple local issues, it was vital to Australia's national interest that ministers and other Legislative Assembly members were Australian citizens. The committee also noted that Australian citizenship is now a requirement or is being considered as a requirement for enrolment and election at local government level on the mainland.The Norfolk Island government also objected to what it saw as the Commonwealth legislating on matters which were the province of the Norfolk Island Assembly. The committee recognised the right of the Norfolk Island Assembly to legislate in this area and it believed that it was preferable that it do so. However, the committee was aware that a succession of Norfolk Island governments have rejected electoral changes proposed by the Commonwealth. Consequently, it was clear that the likelihood that a Norfolk Island government would act unilaterally to implement these changes, which the committee considered to be fundamental to a strong democracy, was remote.The Commonwealth made it clear during the inquiry that self-government for Norfolk Island continued to be desirable; however, it did not believe, and the committee concurred, that the changes to the act affecting the electoral system in any way diminished the island's self-government. The committee also believed that the Commonwealth had a responsibility to ensure that the Norfolk Island government met its existing fiscal and social obligations to the community. Moreover, the committee recognised that the Commonwealth has, and will continue to have, the legitimate right to intervene if it believes that an issue of national or international importance is at stake. The committee hoped that there would be increased cooperation between the Commonwealth and Norfolk Island governments and would be disappointed if Norfolk Islanders should ever be required or feel obliged to choose between increased independence and the benefits of citizenship. The committee concluded that a requirement to have Australian citizenship in order to vote or stand for elections of the Legislative Assembly was appropriate. It was satisfied that adequate safeguards could be provided for non-citizens who were already enrolled and noted both the relative ease with which New Zealand citizens might acquire Australian citizenship and the opportunity that exists for both nations to hold dual citizenship. Two referenda were held on these matters on Norfolk Island and both strongly supported the Norfolk Island government's position of no change. However, the committee was not satisfied that the conduct of the referenda was accompanied by clear, comprehensive information. There was also concern about perceived levels of intimidation of people on the island who disagreed with the majority view. (Time expired)12:37:005562Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—It is a pleasure to stand up today and address the tabling the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories entitled Norfolk Island electoral matters. There have been a number of reviews of electoral matters on Norfolk Island, leading to some changes to the Norfolk Island Act made in 1985. This inquiry is the latest of those reviews. Islands in the sun, tabled in 1991, recommended that: ... the residency provision be coupled with a citizenship requirement so that only Australian citizens are eligible to stand or vote in legislative assembly elections. This was not acted upon at the time. The issue was further raised by Minister Somlyay in 1998 and again by Minister Macdonald in 1999, when he introduced proposed legislative changes to the Norfolk Island Act.The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into those proposed changes, although unfortunately that committee of inquiry was not able to visit the island. Opposition senators at the time rejected the findings of the committee, and the legislation was rejected. However, those same senators included in their addition to the report that: ... the matters of electoral reform contained in this Bill require wider consultation and much more consideration than the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee was able to give.The non-government senators recommended the matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories for further inquiry. Minister Macdonald referred the matter to our committee in November 2000.It was felt that residents on the island should be given every opportunity to put their views to our committee, and this was done by submission, by public hearing, and also by including a number of in camera contributions. The committee members noted with interest the wishes of a number of residents of Norfolk Island; they felt more comfortable taking advantage of the in camera means of addressing the inquiry than of the more public one available.The findings of this inquiry are very much in the same vein as those earlier recommendations I referred to. This report contains two recommendations. They are as follows: Recommendation 1The Committee recommends that Australian citizenship be reinstated as a requirement for eligibility to vote for and be elected to the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, with appropriate safeguards for the right to vote of all those currently on the electoral roll.The Committee further recommends that these changes be incorporated into the Commonwealth Norfolk Island Act 1979.Recommendation 2The Committee recommends that the Government amend all appropriate legislation, including the Norfolk Island Act 1979 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, to ensure that all elections and referenda on Norfolk Island come under the supervision of the Australian Electoral Commission.I want to place on record my thanks and those of my colleagues to the Norfolk Island government and the people from the island who presented submissions and gave evidence, whether publicly or, as I said before, privately, in camera. I also want to thank my colleagues on the committee—both those from this parliament and those from the previous parliament, given that this inquiry spanned an election period. I would like to acknowledge on record the assistance and work of the committee secretariat of the 39th Parliament and the secretariat currently with the committee, who assisted with the production of this report.It is fair to say that this issue has been inquired into and inquired into. However, now that the matter has been thoroughly examined by a joint standing committee of this place, which has looked very carefully not only at the evidence given to it during this inquiry but also at the work and the evidence in those previous inquiries, I and my colleagues on the committee are very much of the view that these recommendations stand strongly on their own behalf. I know that I am probably not alone when I say that I am very much looking forward to seeing the responses that may come to the inquiry recommendations and I know that we are also going to welcome any proposed legislative amendments that may lead from the inquiry.12:42:005563Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I move: That the House take note of the report.In summary, it was the view of the committee that popular referenda were not appropriate mechanisms for determining such questions. The right to vote is a fundamental right, not a matter of popular opinion. This is particularly important where those without a vote are excluded from a referendum to give them the right to vote. Popular opinion often opposes the rights of minorities, the very groups which human rights seek to protect.The committee made three recommendations to the government. First, that the Norfolk Island Act be amended to make, with appropriate safeguards for those already on the electoral roll, Australian citizenship a prerequisite for both suffrage and the right to stand for election; second, that referenda and elections on Norfolk Island come under the supervision of the Australian Electoral Commission; and third, that the eligibility period for voting be reduced to six months. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.5563556312:43:005563Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee's report entitled Report 47—Treaties tabled on 18 and 25 June 2002, together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—The report contains the results of an inquiry conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into nine treaty actions tabled in the parliament on 18 and 25 June 2002.Specifically, the report deals with the following agreements and issues. There are two air service agreements: one with the Cook Islands and one with the Republic of Chile. The air service agreements will facilitate the development of commercial opportunities between Australia and these countries. There is also an agreement with the government of the United States of America for the enforcement of maintenance support obligations. The maintenance agreement will make the enforcement of administrative assessments and court orders for payment of child and spousal support more certain for some Australian claimants. The report covers Australian declarations on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the statute of the International Court of Justice. The declarations give effect to Australia's preference for negotiating its maritime boundaries with its neighbours rather than settling them by appealing to a third party for arbitration. In its deliberations the committee accepted evidence that compulsory third-party arbitration can result in decisions that are unsatisfactory to all parties. The committee received submissions from the public expressing concern that the declarations were made in order to limit East Timor's options in upcoming maritime delimitation negotiations. However, it is noted that East Timor's stated preference is to settle boundaries through negotiation and that the declarations do not target East Timor. Australia has outstanding maritime boundaries to negotiate with New Zealand, France and Norway.The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism advances the ability to police the international financing of terrorist acts and makes clearer the obligations of cash dealers to ensure that suspicious transactions are reported to the government.The report also deals with an amendment to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. The amendment to the convention obligates Australia to refrain from the use of devices that create non-detectable fragments, incendiary devices and blinding laser weapons in non-international as well as international military engagements. The proposed ratification of the amendment exhibits Australia's continued commitment and preparedness to developing institutions that protect civilians and combatants from unnecessary suffering.The next agreement is an Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas. This compliance agreement will have a beneficial influence on the conservation and management of fish stocks on the high seas and migratory and straddling stocks fished for in the Australian fishing zone.The agreement establishing the International Organisation of Vine and Wine updates the current International Vine and Wine Office to acknowledge the increased involvement in the industry and trade of non-European wine producing countries such as Australia—a most worthy objective.Two further treaty actions were tabled on 25 June 2002:· an exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Democratic Republic of East Timor concerning arrangements for exploration and exploitation of petroleum in an area of the Timor Sea; and· the Timor Sea Treaty.The Committee has informed the government that it will inquire into these treaty actions at greater length because of the amount of public interest they have generated. With respect to Report 47—Treaties tabled on 18 and 25 June, it is the view of the committee that it is in the interests of Australia for the treaties it considered to be ratified, and it has made its recommendations accordingly. Before I conclude, I welcome the government's announcement, on 20 August 2002, of an extension of the period of time available to the committee for consideration of certain treaty actions from 15 to 20 sitting days. I envisage that most treaties will continue to be dealt with within the current requirement that the committee report within 15 sitting days of the tabling of the treaty in the parliament. The government has, however, acknowledged that some of the more complex and significant—perhaps controversial—treaties will require a greater period of time for the committee's deliberations and for public debate. Accordingly, consideration of these treaties will be afforded an extension from 15 to 20 sitting days. This will build upon the government's commitment to the democratisation of the treaty-making process of which the treaties committee is an integral part. I commend report 47 to the House.12:49:005564Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—On behalf of the member for Swan, who is the deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties but who is unable to be here, and on behalf of the opposition members of the treaties committee, I would like to join with the chair in commending this report of the committee to the House. As the chair of the committee has said, this report deals with a wide diversity of matters; it is, in that sense, representative of the matters which frequently come before the committee. The committee does deal with a very general range of issues, ranging, as the chair has indicated, from matters as diverse as proposed terrorist treaties and air services agreements to food and wine treaties. It deals with matters of considerable seriousness, such as the financing of terrorist organisations, and matters of equal importance but perhaps less seriousness. Some of the issues which are of significance to the committee at the moment—and, as the chair has indicated, they are occupying considerable amounts of our time—relate to the Timor-Indonesia treaty which Australia is negotiating with the new government of East Timor. Those matters are of some consequence not only to Australia but also to the new government of East Timor and, potentially, to the government of Indonesia. East Timor is, as we know, a new nation with few resources; therefore, the natural resources which lie in the seabed between our two countries are of even greater significance to the people of that new nation than they are to us. I would expect that, over the next few months and perhaps over the next year or so, our two countries will have to negotiate those very delicate and difficult financial and resource allocation questions which will form the basis of much of the future financial development of the nation of East Timor and which, while they are important to Australia, are of less ultimate significance to the financial viability of this country than they are to the people of East Timor. However, they do present significant issues of international law, and they are issues which Australia cannot afford to take lightly. Ultimately, they will touch on our relationships with other countries, including Indonesia, New Zealand and perhaps with France and other countries as well. The issues which we face in relation to East Timor will also have to be taken into account in our relationships with other countries, so more than one question is at stake. Some members of the committee—and because of the bipartisan nature, I will not put it much stronger than that—were concerned about the way in which the government has dealt with the exemption from international adjudication of the resolution of the matter of the boundaries between Australia and East Timor ultimately being resolved in international law. The government has taken us out of that international adjudication process by virtually its own decision making. Therefore, we are not subject to that process. There is a range of reasons why one might do that as a government. Indeed, the East Timor government has indicated its preference for a negotiated settlement and one can hardly object to that ultimately. Friendly negotiations between two friendly neighbouring countries are the best way of settling these things. One wonders whether that was the only issue at the back of the government's mind in this context. We need to scrutinise that issue carefully over the next 12 months to make sure that that is the only issue on the government's mind and to ensure that the bona fides are indeed correct. The public of Australia have a right to know that that is what is fundamentally behind the thinking of the government on this issue. The members of the committee who took a different view from the government members of the committee on this question will look closely at that, but in a bipartisan spirit with Australia's interests fully at heart and taking a close interest in the intricacies of international law, which will ultimately stand the test of time. Australia will have to stand the test of international scrutiny over the way in which it treats its new neighbour on this very delicate issue of the resource and financial division of the considerable wealth which lies on and beneath the seabed between our two nations.12:54:005565Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills5566R16115566Bill presented by Mr Crean.12:54:005566Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—Today I present the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissal—Lower Costs, Simpler Procedures) Bill 2002—a better solution to the unfair dismissal system and Labor's solution, in contrast to the government's bill, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002, an approach which has been rejected five times already by this House. My private member's bill provides a solution driven by the problem, not by the politics. For six years, the government has had an obsession and an assertion in relation to unfair dismissals but it has never had a practical solution. Unfair dismissal laws protect workers from being sacked without good reason. This does not mean a worker cannot be sacked; it simply means they cannot be sacked unfairly. The government wants to take that protection away from employees in small businesses. This not only exposes the workers in those businesses to the fact that they can be sacked unfairly but also exposes small businesses to expensive common law action. It is no solution at all. Just have a look at the government's explanatory memorandum to its so-called `fair dismissals' bill, which seeks to:... prevent small business employees (other than apprentices and trainees) from applying under the WR Act for a remedy in respect of harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination of employment.Just think about that. If the government's Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 is passed, it will mean that there will be no remedy if you are sacked unjustly. That is not fair, not for one moment. It takes fairness away. Rather than being a fair dismissals bill, it takes the fairness out of the procedure. The government claims that passage of this bill will increase employment. How can anyone claim that you can create jobs by making it easier to sack people? It does not stand to reason. It is for those reasons that Labor continue to oppose the government's legislation. We will not support legislation that makes it easier to sack workers unfairly, but we will support changes to the current system—changes to ease the pressure on small businesses in relation to unfair dismissal. Just as we have put forward constructive proposals to lift red tape from small businesses struggling with the GST, so this private member's bill also addresses the concerns of small businesses. Small businesses have told me that they are concerned about delays and legal costs. This bill addresses those issues. It is about lowering costs, simplifying procedures and reducing uncertainty and confusion. The bill I am proposing contains a number of key elements. It seeks to reduce the cost of defending unfair dismissal claims by limiting the role of lawyers. Labor's bill targets the ambulance chasers through better regulation of the paid agents. The bill enables the minister to establish an indicative time frame for unfair dismissal cases to be heard and this will encourage the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to deal with the claims more quickly. The bill also requires sacked workers to seek, as one of the remedies, reinstatement so that the commission cannot consider an application unless reinstatement is part of the remedy. This is designed to combat the pay-off mentality. The bill requires the minister to develop an information package in consultation with the states. The bill will reduce uncertainty for small business operators. It will speed up the process through eliminating unnecessary complexity where several employees are sacked at the same time for related reasons. This deals with a range of cases in the coal mining industry—one still unresolved at Blair Athol. Today we put forward a positive solution. We will oppose the government's attempts to make it easier to sack workers but we are in favour of simplifying the processes, taking the anomalies out and speeding up the processes. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissal—Lower Costs, Simpler Procedures) Bill 2002 is a bill for a positive solution. It is one I commend to the House.Bill read a first time. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business5567556713:00:005567Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I move:That this House:(1) expresses its gratitude to the “Heroes of Kokoda” as we reflect upon the 60th anniversary of the Battles to Save Australia, and accordingly give due honour and respect to the memory of these heroes by: (a) supporting the development of the Kokoda Track as a National Memorial Park, which will ensure it remains a historical, cultural and commemorative experience for all Australians; and (b) establishing a joint Australian and Papua New Guinean Master Plan under the guidance of Australian Government and local PNG Provincial government personnel;(2) expresses support of the Government's commitment of $1.5 million for the establishment of 3 memorials in Papua New Guinea, one of which will be constructed at Isurava to commemorate the Battle at Kokoda; and(3) calls on all Australians in this the 60th anniversary month to commemorate the sacrifice of all servicemen who participated in the battles along the Kokoda Track by: (a) inaugurating a National Day of Remembrance celebrated both in Australia and at Owers Corner, PNG; (b) congratulating the Australian Football League, the members, supporters and administrators of the Sydney Swans and Richmond Tigers for their annual commemorative game at Stadium Australia, honouring the Spirit of Kokoda; and (c) supporting the establishment of a Fuzzy Wuzzy Angel Scholarship Foundation to educate the sons and daughters of the Kokoda Trail Villagers as a sign of our nation's gratitude for the selfless sacrifice of the local people during the campaign.It gives me great honour to introduce this private member's motion honouring the 60th anniversary of the sacrifice by the heroes of Kokoda. Introducing this motion has added significance, as I had the tortuous pleasure of walking from Kokoda to Owers Corner in April this year, emerging from the track in time to attend the very solemn Anzac Day service at Bomana Cemetery.Five hundred young Victorian men left the Australian shores in 1942 for Papua New Guinea believing that they would be stationed in Port Moresby, only to be told on their arrival that they were heading out to Kokoda. They were told that they were the only defence between the invincible Japanese Imperial Army and Port Moresby, and of course Australia itself. They were ordered to defend at all costs, not to retreat, and to buy time while diggers from the 2nd/14th and 2nd/16th returning from the Middle East could be diverted to the track. The 500 young Victorians combined to form the 39th Battalion, a group of relatively untrained and militarily unskilled militia upon whose shoulders, unknowingly, the independence and sovereignty of our nation would depend. These men did not know their fate nor did they know of the sheer number of Japanese they would soon confront. They embarked on a journey that quickly turned into a battle—the battle to save Australia. Their heroism and deeds are the stuff of legends. Sadly, we have not had as proud a record in honouring our past heroes as other nations, but perhaps in the last few years we are seeing a change.In April this year I met up with a group of 18 other Australians to pay our own tribute to the heroes of Kokoda. I was the only federal MP on a nine-day walk across the Kokoda Track, led by New South Wales upper house MP Charlie Lynn—a Vietnam veteran who has made the Kokoda Track and the need to develop a national memorial master plan a cause worth fighting for in all political jurisdictions, here and overseas. We were accompanied for part of the journey by author and director Patrick Lindsay, who has just published the latest book on Kokoda, as well as Army personnel involved in recovering and identifying the remains of an Aussie digger at the original Isurava battlefield site. I vividly recall that the only way I managed to complete the trek was with the incredible assistance of my guide, Naki, as well as an attitude of one foot in front of the next—no time to savour the scenery on a track often not even as wide as one foot; a track often doubling up as a watercourse on the acute, steep slopes.Many of the guides and porters are descendants of the brave native heroes, the fuzzy wuzzy angels, who gave their lives to rescue the Aussie diggers. The most emotional part of the nine days was when we paid homage to one of the original `angels' in the village of Naduli. On this note, I extend sincere congratulations to Kelvin Templeton, the CEO of the Sydney Swans, for organising the first of five Kokoda tribute matches this Saturday at Stadium Australia and for establishing the Fuzzy Wuzzy Scholarship Fund for children of the villages along the track. Well done to the Sydney Swans. The only similarity between our group and the 39th Battalion was our location. The physically and emotionally gruelling nature of the trek pales into insignificance when you think of what the Australian soldiers contended with. We were not being shot at, nor did we have to fight off an overwhelming enemy force, and we had ample food, shelter and support. When the Australians and Japanese met along the track, it was the scene of some of the bloodiest battles fought in Papua New Guinea. The resulting tensions between the diggers and Generals Blainey and MacArthur have been well documented. The bloodiest of all battles took place at Isurava, Templeton's Crossing, Mission Ridge and Brigade Hill. All should be treated as sacred sites by all proud Australians. Some months after the initial arrival, only 32 of the 500 Australians from the 39th Battalion were alive. If it were not for the timely arrival of the 2nd/14th and 2nd/16th, the battles would have been lost.It was a fitting gesture this year to honour the contribution of those Australians who fought along the Kokoda Track. Congratulations to the government for opening the memorial at Isurava, not far from the site where Private Bruce Kingsbury won the first Victoria Cross in the PNG campaign. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the government on the recent environment and heritage legislation introduced in the House. It will soon be possible to list overseas sites that have a national significance. I have already foreshadowed that, in the absence of a federal government application to list the Kokoda Track, I, along with my friend Charlie Lynn, will attempt to do so.As I remarked to James Buchanan, an 82-year-old Deakin constituent who was in the 39th Battalion, `The freedom, sovereignty and independence of our great nation will forever be in debt to the heroes of Kokoda.' May their contribution forever be remembered as Australia's fight for independence. (Time expired)10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Is the motion seconded?1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:06:005568Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I am happy to take part in this debate about the Kokoda Track and, in doing so, I want to read a speech that was made by former Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1992 for the 50th anniversary of the battle. He made this speech on the track, and I quote:This is the place where the rock of friendship and the foundation stone of relations between our two countries rests and while we've had a long history together in places like Port Moresby and Lae and other places it is really here that the soul of the relationship sits, here in Kokoda. Because it was here that Australians decided to defend your liberty as well as their own and you decided to defend yourselves and help us defend ourselves. It was here young Australian men fought for the first time against the prospect of the invasion of their country, of Australia.Never before, even though we fought in many conflicts, mostly imperial conflicts, in conflicts where we felt pangs of loyalty to what was then known as the “Mother Country” to Britain and to the empire to fight in Gallipoli with heroism and in Belgium in Flanders and in France and in other places, this was the first and only time that we've fought against an enemy to prevent the invasion of Australia, to secure the way of life we had built for ourselves. And those young Australian men fought here, 2,000 of them died, 600 Americans died later and we should never forget their sacrifice, that the families who live so distantly in the United States lost 600 sons here should never be forgotten and they cost the lives of 13,000 Japanese who fought for their country and what they believed were their country's strategic interests which were, of course, interests which we could not accept and could only abhor.The lesson of this place is that these young men believed in Australia and we need to give Australians, all Australians, particularly young Australians, an Australia to believe in. We can't deny young Australians their birthright to a past with meaning for them and a future with meaning. It has to be a future with meaning and everything we see here—there can be no deeper spiritual basis to the meaning of the Australian nation than the blood that was spilled on this very knoll, this very plateau, in defence of the liberty of Australia.So, Prime Minister, can I thank you on behalf of your countrymen, some who I've met here today who actually fought in that campaign, for those who died in that campaign, to the relatives here today of loved ones who were lost in that campaign but who gave their lives selflessly in the defence of Papua New Guinea and the defence of Australia and the broader defence of liberty in the Pacific.This was the place where I believe the depth and soul of the Australian nation was confirmed. If it was founded in Gallipoli it was certainly confirmed in the defence of our homeland here.That is an important link. That was 10 years ago; we are now talking about the 60th anniversary. It is tremendous to see that the Prime Minister at that time went and that the current Prime Minister has also gone. So there is a very strong bipartisan approach to this issue. I also want to again read into the Hansard the poem written by Sapper Beros, who was in the 7th Division and served on the track. His mother had the poem published in the Courier Mail. It reads:The Fuzzy Wuzzy AngelsMany a mother in Australia,When the busy day is done,Sends a prayer to the AlmightyFor the keeping of her son.Asking that an Angel guide himAnd bring him safely backNow we see those prayers are answeredOn the Owen Stanley Track,For they haven't any halos,Only holes slashed in their ears,And with faces worked by tattoos,With scratch pins in their hair,Bringing back the wounded,Just as steady as a hearse,Using leaves to keep the rain offAnd gentle as a nurse.Slow and careful in bad places,On the awful mountain track,And the look upon their facesMakes us think that Christ was black.Not a move to hurt the carried,As they treat him like a Saint,It's a picture worth recording,That an Artist's yet to paint.Many a lad will see his Mother,And the Husbands, Weans and Wives,Just because the Fuzzy WuzzyCarried them to save their lives.From mortar or machine gun fire,Or a chance surprise attack,To safety and the care of Doctors,At the bottom of the track.May the Mothers in Australia,When they offer up a prayer,Mention those impromptu Angels,With the Fuzzy Wuzzy hair.Both those pieces cement and relate directly to the motion that was well moved here. I am very strongly in support of it, and let us hope that one day the things suggested in this motion come about.13:10:005569Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise to not only reinforce the spirit of my friend and colleague's motion but also reinforce the fact that I seconded the motion. The motion before the House today is an expression of gratitude and symbolises this parliament's commitment to recognising the work and great achievements of Australian men and women and—as so eloquently outlined by the member for Deakin—those who aided them, as the 60th anniversary of the Kokoda battles draws near. Many will be reminded of it because of the Aussie rules match next weekend—where the mighty Richmond Tigers should give the Sydney Swans a whopping—which will be cause to prick the national conscience about this defining moment in our nation's history.The New Guinea campaign is seen as a defining moment in our history, as the invincibility of the Japanese forces was first broken down during those times. In May 1942, the Japanese attempted to take Port Moresby by sea but were thwarted during the naval battles of the Coral Sea and also by the effects of the Midway battle. The Japanese decided to take Port Moresby in two approaches. First, they landed at Milne Bay on the south-east tip of Papua and were repulsed by the Australians with the aid of air support. The second avenue was over the Owen Stanleys; that caught the Australians by surprise, but we were ready to take it on. The 39th Battalion was ordered to cross the Owen Stanleys to secure an air base at Buna, 200 kilometres away.Our troops were heavily outnumbered, poorly prepared and lightly equipped, so they withdrew to Ioribaiwa and Imita Ridge, where they faced difficult conditions, an extraordinarily difficult climate and unforgiving terrain. The Australian 39th Battalion was joined eventually by the 53rd Battalion and by the seasoned AIF infantry battalions of the 21st Brigade. Savage battles ensued, but the Australians started to gain the upper hand and the Japanese were unable to advance beyond Ioribaiwa. The Australians were reinforced by the AIF 3rd Battalion, the 25th Brigade, the Second First Pioneer Battalion and the 66th Independent Company. The suffering was huge: sleep deprivation, inadequate shelter, difficult climate, limited food and very restricted medical supplies. Troops carried 30 kilograms of equipment; they fought through constant wetness, tortuous terrain, and tropical diseases and fevers—malaria, hookworm, dysentery and the like. In that initial phase 600 Australians died and more than 1,000 were wounded.Kokoda marked the turning point in the war of the south-west Pacific. The Japanese would no longer pose a direct threat to Australia. The member for Deakin has outlined the gallantry, and the great suffering that was endured in order to protect our nation. I believe his motion to properly recognise the heroes of Kokoda as we approach the 60th anniversary is entirely appropriate. The idea of a national memorial park is certainly something that needs to be worked through with the Papua New Guinean government, but I wholeheartedly endorse the member for Deakin's push to have some formal recognition of that part of Papua New Guinea as part of our national history and—as was mentioned by the previous speaker, the member for Cowan—part of our national sacred space.There is master planning going on as a joint Australian-Papua New Guinean endeavour. Funds are being provided through the Australian government, and the support of the provincial government, through its personnel and infrastructures, is seeing that improvements and proper memorials are created. As the member for Deakin mentioned, funds are being made available for three particular memorials, and there was also recognition—through the visit led by our Prime Minister—of what a remarkable contribution Australians have made. The member for Deakin has also outlined the Fuzzy Wuzzy Angel Scholarship Foundation and the contribution of Kelvin Templeton and the Sydney Swans in making sure that this date is not forgotten.The member for Deakin also mentioned the heritage laws that are available now, where our nation can protect and recognise heritage that is actually in countries outside our jurisdiction. I believe it is important that this site, and also some of the areas that were traversed by the 58/59th Battalion, gain recognition. It could be embraced as a comprehensive package of heritage sites properly supported by interpretive signage and markers so that our heritage that was fought for, the blood that was lost and the national character that was created in areas of Papua New Guinea, highlighted by the Kokoda campaign, can be recognised and shared by all Australians. While the names of the AIF battalions are pretty much household words, few civilians have heard of the 58/59th Battalion. I mention that as my grandfather served in that unit. It was one of the few battalions in the Australian Army to win all of the battles in which it was engaged during the war, and it should also be recognised as part of an integrated proposal. (Time expired)13:15:005570Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—One of the greatest battles in Australian history occurred in 1942, when Australian soldiers and AIF forces battled against the Japanese invasion force. The campaign centred around the one-metre wide, 160-kilometre long Kokoda Track through the Owen Stanley mountain range, crossing gorges and streams and going over ridges of up to 2,500 metres high from Buna to Port Moresby. It was known as the worst battlefield of World War II. Australians were outnumbered five to one; they were fighting against superior armed and experienced jungle troops, but the Australians finally sapped the Japanese of strength, bringing their advance to a halt before finally driving them out of New Guinea.This month is the 60th anniversary to commemorate and honour the sacrifice of our armed forces, in particular the 39th Battalion, the 2/14, the 2/16 and the 21st Brigade and all other servicemen who contributed towards the campaign along the Kokoda Track. We cannot be grateful enough to these gallant servicemen and women for their bravery that saved Australia from invasion and subsequent loss of freedom. At this point, I would like to pay tribute to our friends in Papua New Guinea. The loss of 600 lives during the campaign was quite significant. This would have been far greater had it not been for the help of the native Papua New Guineans affectionately known as the fuzzy wuzzy angels. No known live casualty was ever abandoned by those Kokoda Track villagers. One digger wrote:They carried stretchers over seemingly impassable barriers, with the patient reasonably comfortable. The care they give to the patient is magnificent. If night finds the stretcher still on the track, they will find a level spot and build a shelter over the patient. They will make him as comfortable as possible, fetch him water and feed him if food is available, regardless of their own needs. They sleep four each side of the stretcher and if the patient moves or requires any attention during the night, this is given instantly. These were the deeds of the “Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels”—for us! For our men and our women.The Kokoda Track today is increasingly becoming a destination for international tourists and for those of us who make the pilgrimage to pay our respects to Australian servicemen and women who served during World War II in this rugged and inhospitable environment. The motion before the House seeks to pay tribute to the heroes of Kokoda and to honour and respect their sacrifice. The development of the Kokoda Track as a national memorial park, within the context of an Australian-PNG master plan, is important and will ensure that this historical piece of heritage is retained for future generations. The allocation of $1.5 million by the federal government for the three new war memorials on the Kokoda Track, Milne Bay and Popondetta to mark the 60th anniversary of the Papua New Guinea campaigns during World War II is supported fully by the Australian community.The monument subsequently unveiled at the northern end of the Kokoda Track is a first and positive step towards establishing a commemorative platform of activities in recognition of those who served in Australia's PNG campaign. This monument features granite plinths engraved with the words `courage, endurance, mateship and sacrifice', which epitomises the very sentiments of the Australian community who salute those who have fought to defend our freedom and our democracy. The commemoration of the sacrifice of the 39th Battalion, the 2/14, the 2/16 and 21st Brigade, and all of the other servicemen and women who have participated in the battles along the Kokoda Track, by commemorative activities such as the establishment of a day of remembrance are essential symbols of our nation's gratitude. At the same time, it is imperative to demonstrate our appreciation to organisations such as the Australian Rugby League and the Sydney Swans, as well as the Richmond Tigers, for their annual commemorative game honouring the spirit of Kokoda. Educating the sons and daughters of the Kokoda Track villagers as a sign of the nation's gratitude is a laudable and patriotic undertaking and bears great potential to assist in establishing closer links between our two great nations. I support this motion and I appreciate that this motion was put forward by the member for Deakin. I think it is a great honour and a great privilege for us in this House to be able to mark the 60th anniversary and to pause for a moment and remember the sacrifice made by our gallant troops who fought with distinction in very difficult circumstances. By all accounts they prevented the Japanese forces from marching through to Port Moresby and heading to Australia, at which point we really do not know what would have happened, and we are glad we do not know. I commemorate those servicemen and women. (Time expired)13:21:005572Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNP10—I rise in the House today to join others in support of the motion put forward by the member for Deakin, with others on both sides of this parliament speaking to it. We express our gratitude to the heroes of Kokoda and applaud the establishment of a national memorial park along the Kokoda Track. This is the 60th anniversary of the battle on the Kokoda Track, and it reminds us all that this part of Australia, as it was at the time, was the last line of defence that had to be defended should the Japanese gain a foothold in New Guinea. As others said previously, Australia would have been a much different place had they been successful. Our sovereignty certainly was at risk, and that is why we are today saluting those men of the Australian Defence Force. I think we should also include those of the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force, because all three services played a part in support or in transport or in the operations of those from the ground on the Kokoda Track.The battle for New Guinea began with the Japanese invasion. The forces landed at Gona, on the north-east coast of Papua. We all know now, and history tells us, that their plan was to cross the Owen Stanley range and to attack and occupy Port Moresby, the main Australian base in New Guinea, which would have given them a strategic point from which to launch off into Australia.Australia's official historian, Dudley McCarthy, describes the Owen Stanley range as the most rugged on earth. I have never had the opportunity to visit the Owen Stanley range, but I have certainly flown over it. I have read much of the history of the Kokoda campaign. Men of the Australian Defence Forces fought under horrific conditions: the terrain was rugged, they were not well equipped and they had to endure a tropical climate. The young soldiers had to contend with not just the steepness of the track but with rainforests dripping with moss and infested with leeches and mosquito-infested swamps. We all know that a large number of our men contracted malaria, a disease that would afflict them for many years after their service in New Guinea. Despite being in the tropics, they were continually wet and cold in the incessant rain and high altitudes, which had an effect on their physical wellbeing. I salute our Australian soldiers for their determination—they were determined to take Kokoda and to push the Japanese back off the Owen Stanley range, something that we should all admire and salute.The withdrawal ended on 17 September at Imita Ridge, north-east of Port Moresby, with the Australians benefiting from reinforcements. Japanese forces were at the end of a long supply line. At that stage, the Japanese commander ordered the Japanese to retreat and the Australians followed up the Kokoda Track, retaking Kokoda on 2 November.Many have likened Kokoda to being like Gallipoli on our territory. Others have said that we need to encourage young Australians to visit Kokoda and the Kokoda Track—young Australians are visiting Gallipoli in large numbers today—as it is close to home and gives young Australians the opportunity to see first-hand and understand better the conditions under which Australians served.I would also like to acknowledge the fact that the Victoria Cross was posthumously awarded to Bruce Kingsbury for his efforts on the Kokoda campaign on 29 August and to Corporal French from Crows Nest for his efforts at Milne Bay on 4 September. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)13:26:005572Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I am pleased to support this private member's motion honouring those who fought on the Kokoda Track. Had it not been for the brave deeds of the ANZACs during the Gallipoli campaign, it may well have been the story of Australian experiences on the Kokoda Track that assumed the role of defining us as a nation. Despite the passage of time and the recent death of our last ANZAC, Gallipoli holds a significant place in our national consciousness. Yet it was at Kokoda that Australians displayed similar bravery and defended Australia when it directly faced the threat of invasion by the Japanese. Australian soldiers were killed in battle, paying for their bravery with their very lives. In fact, more Australians died in the seven months of this campaign than in any other of World War II. Many were captured, suffering as prisoners of war. Kokoda was a theatre of war where Australian soldiers experienced unspeakable acts of brutality. Our Japanese enemy was brutal in the treatment it dispensed to the Aussie diggers. It is understandable that the psychological effects would remain long after the physical scars have healed. While I have no hesitation in supporting this motion and measures to acknowledge the actions of Australians on Kokoda, I am mindful of the necessity to do so with dignity and respect. For the veterans who survived Kokoda, the memories of their experiences are understandably not always pleasant ones. I am sure that many actually choose to forget what they experienced on the Kokoda Track. Let us ensure that we express our gratitude for their service but do not force commemoration upon those who have every right to keep their memories their own.The suggestions by the member for Deakin in this motion to recognise the deeds of Australian soldiers at Kokoda are an appropriate way of giving our thanks to those who fought to save Australia. Kokoda deserves the status of a national memorial park so that it remains a historical, cultural and commemorative experience for future generations of Australians who owe their freedoms to the sacrifices of Australian soldiers on Kokoda. I am particularly pleased to see there is provision for Australia to work with the government of Papua New Guinea in the development of various memorials to Kokoda. I am also pleased that there should be recognition for the pivotal role of the fuzzy wuzzy angels. Many Australian survivors owe their lives to the bravery of the Kokoda Track villagers, many of whom lost their lives in the struggle to stop the invasion of Australia by the Japanese. They displayed enormous bravery in the process. Even the Japanese survivors have acknowledged the ferocity with which Australian soldiers fought in the various battles of Kokoda.It is appropriate that the Commonwealth parliament should support this motion and do so in the absence of partisan political divisions. The memorials at Kokoda will also provide tangible reminders to the deeds of Australian heroes. I am sure the many younger Australians who make the pilgrimage to Gallipoli will also visit Kokoda in greater numbers. We should encourage them to do so.The observations of my colleague the member for Cowan about his regular visits to Vietnam are probably familiar to many members of this House. He is a great champion for all our veterans from all wars. Visiting places such as Vietnam, Gallipoli and Kokoda is the best way to experience and understand these struggles first-hand and to pay tribute to those who participated. I would encourage all members of this parliament to do so. In commending this motion to the House, I express my gratitude to the heroes of Kokoda. It is their bravery and sacrifice that allow us to meet here today in this House 60 years later.13:29:005573Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLP10—Four years ago, in August 1998, I went to Isurava—the battlefield of which had only just been rediscovered—and took back the veterans from the 39th Battalion and the 2/14th. It was called `the last parade'. I went there in my capacity as Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. In that clearing, where the descendants of fuzzy wuzzy angels met the veterans, there was a small pulpit-like structure erected from saplings that had been cut from the jungle. I spoke from there, as did others. I apologised to the men of the 39th Battalion and told them that they were heroes, not the cowards that they had been falsely labelled by General Blamey after they had fought together with the 2/14th at that Battle of Isurava—in so many ways the most significant battle for Australia, because this was the first time that Australians fought alone on an Australian territory to repel an invader that was coming to our shores. The men of the 39th were militia. They had had six weeks training, if that. They were under the command of Colonel Honner. They were meant to be relieved by the 2/14th, who had been returned from the Middle East. The age of the men from the 39th was 18. The age of those returning was 23—they were seasoned. It was the first time the militia and members of the AIF fought together on Australian territory. They fought side by side, as the men of the 39th decided they could not be relieved; they had to remain and fight. It was from there on a policy of strategic withdrawal, holding the Japanese at bay, stretching their supply lines, demoralising them. It was a ferocious battle.The week before last, I went back to the Kokoda Track. This time I did not fly by helicopter, as I had previously, but walked in to Isurava with Charlie Lynn, from Efogy 1. I thought very often of those men as I looked beside the track at holes where Australian troops had dug in. There had been the most ferocious of fighting and they had fought outnumbered—something like six to one, sometimes 10 to one—all knowing that they were fighting for Australia. These men did not have long trousers, as we had, or hiking boots. They had Army issue of the time, which was shorts. The temperature gets down below zero at night. They did not have anything warm to wrap up in, as we did; they had capes. I walked along one part of the track where one of those who fought there for us, to give me and the rest of us in this chamber the freedom we enjoy, had crawled with crudely made pads on his knees and his hands, knowing that if he stopped it would mean death, knowing that the ferociousness of their enemy was something they could not give in to.In the place of that small pulpit-like structure there is now a magnificent memorial commemorating that battle. I promised the men when I was there in 1998 that I would do all I could to ensure that the name of Isurava became as well known as the name Gallipoli. I felt that my trekking for four days through the jungle and just beginning to understand what they went through was part of that promise.My dad fought in New Guinea. I thought of him a lot. He never talked to me about it; he talked to my brother, because he did not think girls ought to know too much about the war. But I have heard the story since and I thought about him a lot on the track. I went with Charlie Lynn, a former major in the Australian Army, now a member of the legislative council of NSW, who has done it 29 times and cares passionately, as I have come to do, about letting people know about the courage of our men at Isurava. There are many memorials that are being planned. I think the one to be launched, as outlined in the motion, is one to be commended, as indeed is the rest of the motion. It was a very moving experience for me, but not a fraction of what it was for those men. (Time expired)13:35:005574Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—I am pleased to be able to rise today and support the member for Deakin's motion of gratitude to the heroes of Kokoda. Although I will not comment on the three paragraphs and subparagraphs of the motion, I note that they are worthy of our strong support. I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate, particularly as we approach the 60th anniversary of the battles to save Australia with a shared understanding of their importance. This, as others have observed, has not always been the case. For decades, both historians and Australian governments rejected the significance of the Kokoda Track to our political and cultural history. This has been particularly unjust to the servicemen involved, not only because of the enormity of their heroism and their suffering but also because they had already been neglected by the military hierarchy at the time of their ordeal. Shamefully, no Australian Prime Minister had visited Kokoda after the event prior to the visit of Paul Keating in April 1992. I note that Christopher Bantick, in his article in the Canberra Times of 9 September 2000, says:When former Prime Minister Paul Keating kissed the ground at Kokoda on which the Diggers died, he recognised the sacredness of the place where much Australian blood was shed and, in a single, stunning, natural act, he perhaps also baptised Kokoda as a new Gallipoli in national memory.I think that is truly the case and, in that context, I want to congratulate the current Prime Minister, following his commemorative visit earlier this month, for his efforts to ensure that the track is being honoured in the rightful way. It is the least we must do.In the early hours of tomorrow morning it will be 60 years since a force of several thousand experienced Japanese soldiers launched their attack on the Australian 39th Battalion at Isurava. The 39th comprised, as I have said, an inexperienced bunch of boys—literally—with an average age of 18½ years, new to the war and new to the jungle. I am not going to detail the events of the following months; they have become legend and others here have spoken about them. The fortitude and sacrifice of the 39th, their Papuan allies and the battalions that came later to their aid deserve reverent acknowledgment. Their determined resistance and eventual victories, including the unlikely success at Milne Bay, stunned and invigorated the Allies. As Field Marshal William Slim, the commander of the Allied forces in India and Burma, later noted:We were greatly cheered by the news of the Australian victory at Milne Bay. This was the first-ever defeat of the Japanese on land. If the Australians had done it, so could we.The peoples of Australia and Papua had shown their resourcefulness and their courage to the world. I just want to refer again to the article by Christopher Bantick. He in turn quotes from a book by Peter Brune entitled We Band of Brothers. He quotes Brune referring to the struggles and travails of the 39th Battalion and the mammoth effort at Kokoda:In simple terms, the saga of the 39th Australian Infantry Battalion's campaigning is a classic illustration of what egalitarian Australia has always rejoiced in—the seemingly impossible triumph of the underdog against all conceivable odds.And he says also:The 39th Battalion represented Australia at that time. Australia was almost a naive country. Isurava was a turning point in the country's maturity. We didn't have anybody else but ourselves.That is an accurate depiction. Others have talked about this event as our coming of age. But it was an important tragic and heroic moment and part of the Australian story, and part of the Australian story that we Australians need to constantly remind ourselves of, especially as those veterans of those great campaigns—including Kokoda—are coming near to the end of their lives. We must ensure that the effort, their sacrifices and the sacrifices of the fuzzy wuzzy angels—the help that they gave these heroic individuals and the courage they showed—are not forgotten and that future generations recall and understand that moment in our history. (Time expired).13:40:005575Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I rise today to speak on the motion moved by the member for Deakin, which, amongst other things, states:That this House:(1) expresses its gratitude to the “Heroes of Kokoda” ...The motion put forward by the honourable member for Deakin deals with a subject which is very dear to my heart. I last spoke in the House on Kokoda just over a year ago, when I had the pleasure of moving a motion in relation to obtaining support for the development of the Kokoda Track as a national memorial park on behalf of the Hon. Charlie Lynn MLC of the New South Wales parliament.The motion to which I speak today reiterates this call and asks that this House support the government's commitment of $1½ million for the establishment of three memorials in Papua New Guinea and calls on all Australians in this 60th anniversary month to commemorate the sacrifice of all servicemen who participated in the battles along the Kokoda trail, and to do this by inaugurating a national day of remembrance and supporting the Fuzzy Wuzzy Angel Scholarship Foundation to educate the sons and daughters of the Kokoda trail villagers as a sign of our nation's gratitude for the selfless sacrifice of the local people during this campaign.I personally would like to add my full support to this motion because, as I have said before, our diggers' efforts at Kokoda are the Second World War equivalent of Gallipoli, or even better. The odds faced by our diggers at Kokoda were just amazing. They were outnumbered and outgunned, yet they still managed to contest every inch of the Kokoda Track as they forced the Japanese troops to retreat. The conflict cost 607 lives and left more than 1,000 seriously injured, yet despite the amazing odds the Australians reoccupied the village of Kokoda on 2 November 1942. This was an amazing feat. I do not believe that many of the Australian public realise just what an amazing feat this was. Unless you have trekked the rugged and unforgiving terrain of the track, I do not think that anyone can even remotely imagine just what our young diggers were actually faced with.The many documentaries of the Kokoda Track and of celebrity trekkings of the Kokoda Track have helped to raise the profile of those young diggers who sacrificed themselves for the nation. I am pleased that these documentaries have helped our younger generations to understand just exactly why they can live in our country as they do today. However, not many Australians—young or old—recognise that of all the Allies it was these diggers on the Kokoda Track who first broke the spell of the invincibility of the Japanese army. They were the ones who first made the progress, who won the battle and who succeeded in forcing the Japanese troops to retreat. So it is for these reasons that I believe that it is very important to commemorate their efforts by developing the Kokoda Track as a national memorial park and that we should be trying to establish a joint Australian and Papua New Guinea master plan.Following my last speech in the House on the Kokoda Track, I was contacted by two people who are very supportive of the motion I put forward. Dr Alan Bentley, a fellow South Australian, contacted me to offer his support to the development of the Kokoda Track as a national memorial park. Dr Bentley served in the 6th Australian Field Ambulance, 21st Brigade, which provided the 31 medical members for the Maroubra force. The other person was Mr Ross Bastiaan OAM RFD of Victoria, who wrote to me voicing his support. I was amazed when reading Mr Bastiaan's letter to realise the level of support some people are prepared to provide to preserve this important and emotional part of our history. Mr Bastiaan's dedication cannot go unnoticed and it is for people such as Mr Bastiaan and Dr Bentley and my good friend the Hon. Charlie Lynn that this House must see this project through to fruition. I fully support all aspects of this motion and urge all my colleagues to do the same.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members5576557613:45:005576Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I wish to express my sorrow at the untimely death of John Staehr. John Staehr was 56 years old. He was the Manager of Government Relations with Mitsubishi Motors Australia. My understanding is that on Friday of the week before last he died in his sleep. I know John will be missed by many of my colleagues. John and I had many discussions over the years about Mitsubishi and we also formed quite a friendship over the last two or three years. He and his family were well known to my wife and her family because they lived around the corner in Kings Park. I know that John will be missed by his colleagues at Mitsubishi. From reading the obituary notices in the paper, I know that he was very active in the community, and he will be missed by his local Neighbourhood Watch and by the Lutheran community in South Australia as well. I extend my condolences to his wife, Jan, and to his children, Damien, Emilie and Ben.557613:46:005576King, Catherine, MPMs KING00AMRBallaratALP00—I would like to bring to the attention of the House the passing of a great new Australian: Mr James Mahony—or Don, as he was known to his friends in Ballarat. He served courageously in the Second World War for the RAF as a rear gunner in Lancaster bombers. At war's end he decided to leave his homeland and seek a new life in Australia. Arriving as a £10-Pom, Don threw himself into his adopted country. He travelled from one end of this continent to the other, seeing parts of our country that those who are born here may never have seen. After many years he settled in Ballarat with his wife Barbara. Like every Australian he loved his beer, and he followed the Western Bulldogs football team religiously every weekend.Don had always wanted to be an Australian citizen but, due to illness and other issues during his life, he never got around to it. Two months ago he came into my office seeking assistance in obtaining his citizenship. Don's application was progressing but, unfortunately, three weeks ago he suffered a stroke. Thanks to John Croft at Australia Post, the citizenship section at DIMIA, and the quick thinking of Chris Roley in my office and Ian Effratt at the City of Ballarat, we were able to get his citizenship through. On Wednesday, 14 August 2002, in a moving bedside ceremony in the Geoffrey Carter Nursing Home, the Mayor of Ballarat, David Vendy, was able to swear Don in as an Australian citizen. Don passed away two minutes after being sworn in. I would like to salute this man in the House today and, on behalf of the people of Ballarat, welcome him as an Australian.557713:48:005577King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—In this House on 25 June this year, I called for a cessation of the homicide bombing campaign against innocent civilians in Israel by those organisations that mastermind such terrorist acts. I also asked for the punishment of those involved in suicide bombings that had led to the loss of 30 lives in Israel in that week alone. In that statement and in my earlier report tabled in this House on my visit to Israel in February, I detailed the anguish and suffering of those affected by this terrible practice. I foreshadowed then the tabling of a petition to this parliament on behalf of many Australians—both Jewish and non-Jewish—and of the international community concerned about this grave crime against humanity. In particular, members of my electorate, along with Dr Bornstein and colleagues of his, have worked with Mr Andrew Isaacs of my office to obtain more than 2,402 signatures on a petition in proper form; they have also obtained another 85,000 signatures electronically in a supporting petition. Following question time today, the Speaker will table that petition in this House.The petition, amongst other things, calls on the humanitarian ideals of the people of Australia as represented by the parliament and asks the House—through the government, obviously—to propose a motion at the United Nations that a clear and unequivocal declaration be made that the practice of suicide bombing is a crime against humanity and that the criminals involved should be prosecuted and punished under international convention. The entire world is hoping for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the Middle East, and a key component of that hoped for outcome is the Palestinian authority ensuring the cessation of homicide bombings in Israel. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I would point out for the record that the petition will be tabled by the Clerk, not the Speaker.557713:49:005577Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I was pleased to attend the official opening and dedication by the Reverend Brian King, the Bishop of Western Sydney, of stage 1 classrooms at the Rouse Hill Anglican College in my electorate of Greenway yesterday. As this college will enrol students from an area covering two federal electorates, two state electorates and two local government areas, it was appropriate that state and federal members and councillors from those areas were present. Currently there are 150 students enrolled, and they graced the occasion with their singing, neat uniforms and general good behaviour. As construction is proceeding on stage 2, it can be expected that this student population will increase considerably over time. The point was made that the challenge to the community is not to say that this college provides better education than the state system or the Catholic system but that it provides diversity in education for the students of Western Sydney—a worthy objective, I believe.With Blacktown and surrounding areas being one of the fastest growing regions in Australia, it is pleasing to see all the education authorities, both state and private, striving to meet the challenge of educating our young students. I congratulate Rouse Hill Anglican College, Council Chairman Reverend Dane Courtney and the principal, Mr Peter Fowler, as well as the many members of the Anglican community who have supported this project. It is a job well done. I wish the college all the best for the future.557813:51:005578Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—Today I would like to bring to the attention of the House the appalling state of the New England Highway in a section between Hexham and Maitland. The NRMA did an audit of the New England Highway and found that this 12.8 kilometre section was the worst section in Australia. The crashes and casualties rate is 79 per cent higher than on any other route along the highway. In fact, on 14 August there was a fatality at the intersection of South Seas Drive and the New England Highway. In an attempt to reduce the potential for fatalities such as occurred on 14 August, this needs to be made a left in, left out road, thus avoiding having traffic crossing the New England Highway. In addition, the state government needs to commit to building the link road between Thornton and Beresfield and it needs to build that link. This was promised again in February last year. Nothing to date has been done; all we have seen is great pontification. Following that, I demand that the federal government fund the Weakley's Drive interchange for the New England Highway, to alleviate traffic pressures. It is about time that all levels of government worked together to save the lives of innocent motorists when they are presented with motoring conditions which are to their detriment. As I said, the NRMA audit has found the Hexham to Maitland section of road to be the worst along the New England Highway. As the member for Paterson, I demand that all levels of government address this situation.557813:52:005578Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I use this opportunity to speak on the plight of the Bulldogs or on `Doggiegate', as the issue has come to be known. As a loyal supporter of the Bulldogs since 1967, I indicate that those responsible for breaching the salary cap have badly let down all Bulldogs' fans. By stripping the Bulldogs of all their competition points, other than those for the byes, the National Rugby League is punishing not only the management but also the players and the fans. I am sure the fans had nothing to do with the breaching of the salary cap.I would have to speculate that the salary cap has been designed not by the National Rugby League but by the Australian Rugby Union, because the union uses that cap to its best advantage to attract players away from rugby league. A friend of mine has done some figures, and there has been no evening up of the competition since the introduction of the salary cap. I note that another club has been found guilty of a technical breach of the salary cap, so it looks like there are two types of breaches: a technical breach and a Bulldogs breach. Any and all clubs found guilty of breaching the salary cap, no matter whether it is by $100,000 or $1,000,000, should be thrown out of the competition, retrospectively if need be. I leave you with this point: you cannot keep a good dog down. The Bulldogs will be back in 2003 and will win the competition. (Time expired)557813:54:005578May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I recently met with some of McPherson's hardworking and disciplined students who have been recognised recently by the Commonwealth government for their outstanding academic achievements. The six students involved are a credit to their families, to their schools and to the community as a whole. They are: Troy Mossley, of Palm Beach Currumbin State High School; Carl Pahoff, of Marymount College; Christopher Richmond, of Somerset College; Byron Rooney and Tamah Murfet, of All Saints Anglican School; and Rebecca Davies, who was represented by her mother. Unfortunately, Rebecca is in the United Kingdom for a year, as she has taken a year off before she goes to university. It was my pleasure to present each of these students with a certificate and a $2,000 cash prize, which will go some way to helping them with their university studies. I would like to wish each of them well with their future studies. I know they will go on to excel in whatever field they choose and to be a credit to their country, their community and, of course, their schools and families.557913:55:005579Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—In the streets of Teheran and Isfahan at the moment, demonstrations against the theocratic regime in Iran by up to 50,000 young people are taking place. Underneath the façade of the current regime, Iran has always aspired to be a very modern country. With the very young profile of its population, the increasing intolerance of the hardline theocratic regime is becoming intolerable to the Iranian people. It is strange that this has been almost unreported by the international press but, when 50,000 young people have to have their demonstration broken up by Uzbek, Palestinian and Chechen thugs because the Iranian police are confined to barracks in Teheran and Isfahan, the people of Iran should know that democrats around the world have an eye on their activities and support them against the regime.This democratic impulse of all people was brought to mind by a recent meeting I had with the Chinese human rights dissident Wei Jingsheng. He was here in Parliament House recently and his activities in China are of great annoyance to the Chinese government. Many of us in this House support good relations with China, and we have to have a Realpolitik relationship with Iran. But it is very important that we in this House indicate that we support human rights in both Iran and China and give a signal to the young people of Iran and to people like Wei Jingsheng that we are mindful of their democratic aspirations as well. (Time expired)557913:57:005579Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I was astonished to learn recently that the Wentworth Area Health Service of the New South Wales government have decided to reduce community nursing services for our local schools. Specifically, they intend to cease the universal screening of kindergarten children for hearing and vision problems. This is an appalling decision which will have a detrimental effect on children in the Hawkesbury, the Blue Mountains and the Nepean areas. Apart from the obvious health issues, picking up deficiencies in hearing and vision has important implications for children's learning. Undetected hearing problems can seriously impede their progress in literacy. For the state government to say it will provide a referral system instead totally misses the point. In many cases, slight vision and hearing difficulties are not easily detected by parents or teachers. Screening of all children at the time of school entry is essential if these difficulties are to be detected. To abandon this is a short-sighted decision to save a few miserable dollars. For the sake of our children, I urge the New South Wales government and the Wentworth Area Health Service to reverse this appalling, ill-considered decision. 557913:58:005579Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—On Thursday, 15 August, I had the privilege of representing the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson, at the opening of the Lake Munmorah High School. This capital works program involved federal government funding of $15,661,000 out of a total cost of $17,409,000. I want to highlight to the parliament how much money the federal government is contributing to state government schools. For that project, more than $15 million was provided for the Lake Munmorah High School—a very important initiative. The federal government is committed to ensuring that every student receives quality school education.In 2003, the federal government will be providing $6.5 billion for schooling. That is an increase of $475 million or 7.9 per cent over the previous year. This funding includes $322 million for capital projects on Australian schools. The Howard government is committed to providing good infrastructure and the best education for all students, whether they attend government or non-government schools. The official opening of the Lake Munmorah High School, to which we contributed—as I said earlier—$15,661,000 for the construction of this excellent high school, is a very tangible example of the amount of money the Howard government is putting into state government schools. Unfortunately, it is something that the state governments do not recognise at any stage. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the time for members' statements has concluded.Ministerial Arrangements558014:00:005580Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Environment and Heritage will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. He is leading the Australian delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will answer questions on his behalf.Miscellaneous558014:00:005580Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, as members on both sides of the House will be aware, yesterday marked the 60th anniversary of the decisive battle of Milne Bay in World War II. The Battle of Milne Bay in late August of 1942 was a turning point in World War II, as Japanese forces staged a concerted effort to secure a base for naval and air support for the attack on Port Moresby. The Allied defenders, including 4,500 Australian infantrymen and RAAF Kittyhawk fighters, drove off the enemy forces, inflicting the first defeat of the war against a Japanese amphibious force.It was at Milne Bay that Corporal John French of the 2nd/9th Battalion was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for his role in capturing three Japanese machine gun posts. Popondettawas the staging area for the Australian offensive against Japanese positions at the northern beach heads of Buna-Gona and Sandakan, the scenes of some of the fiercest fighting of the New Guinea campaign. It was in every sense a turning point in that war; it was a remarkable feat by Australian forces. I think it is appropriate that, in this way, this House pause for a moment to mark the enormity of what was achieved by Australian infantrymen on that occasion and the great impact it had on the course of World War II.14:02:005580Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I join with the Prime Minister in recognising the historic significance of yesterday's 60th anniversary. The battle of Milne Bay marked a concerted effort by the Japanese to secure a base for naval and air support for the attack on Port Moresby. This battle was the first defeat of a Japanese amphibious landing in the Second World War. Field Marshal Sir William Slim said, in describing the significance of this battle:Australian troops had at Milne Bay inflicted on the Japanese their first undoubted defeat on land. Some of us may forget that. Of all the allies, it was the Australians who first broke the invincibility of the Japanese Army.Working alongside our allies, Australia did lead this campaign. The battle was in so many ways a historic turning point in the battle of Australia 60 years ago. I know that I am speaking for all Australians of all political persuasions in expressing the views of a grateful nation to those wonderful people and to their bravery.Questions Without Notice5580558014:03:005580 McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services. Do you recall last year in your defence of your family payment system saying in parliament:Of course, what we have done, which we are the first government to do, is, if people underestimate their income, we give them a 10 per cent top up.Minister, why did you not mention the fact that, while family payment debts last forever, your top up is only good for 12 months—the only tax-linked benefit to have such a time limit? Minister, what is your advice to the Canberra family whose tax return reached the tax office two days late and who missed out on a $1,900 top up?5581Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I would like to thank the honourable member for her question. It gives me an opportunity to reiterate the government's family tax benefit program. I will state again that this is all about giving extra payments to Australian families. Two million Australian families received at least $2 billion extra through the family tax benefit and, of course, that gave assistance to the children of those families.We did make some modifications. For the first time, those parents—particularly if they overestimated their income and, therefore, were entitled to more family tax benefit—could receive that at the end of the year when a reconciliation was done. That was called a top-up payment. Certainly, in the first financial year when the new taxation system came into place, I have been informed that up to about 400,000 families received that. The question the honourable member asks is, `Why isn't that period perhaps longer, compared to other social security legislation or law?' I might add that the arrangements that we have in place for family tax benefit, particularly the top up, which allows 12 months, allow significantly longer than just about any other form of social security payment.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Why is it the only one?XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Perhaps the member for Lilley might learn something about this, because the legislation that was put through on this over two years ago was supported by this parliament and, indeed, a lot of this notification is in the Tax Pack. But I want to reiterate again that there is a 12-month period for that top up and that is very generous compared to other forms of social security payments.558114:06:005581Ticehurst, Kenneth, MPMr TICEHURST00ANFDobellLP10—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is Australia playing a full and positive role in supporting sustainable development? What practical outcomes is the government pursuing?5581Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Dobell for his question. In the week that the World Summit on Sustainable Development is commencing in Johannesburg—and the Australian delegation is being led very ably by the Minister for the Environment—it is important to record that Australia has much to be proud of in relation to the support of sustainable development. For example, since the coalition came to power in 1996, we have made available over $3 billion in funding for national resource management and for restoration of our environment. We have introduced Australia's first-ever oceans policy, which will balance conservation and development, put fisheries on a sustainable basis and help restore our coastal habitats. Globally, we have energetically pursued sustainable management of international oceans— from protecting whales to seeking a tight management regime for southern bluefin tuna and other species. We have finalised regional forest agreements, covering some of our most important forests and laying out the ground rules for protection as well as development. We have provided over $1 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Australian industry, with Australia's emissions being significantly cut over and above the business-as-usual levels. We have introduced significantly tighter fuel and vehicle emissions standards to protect our urban environment. At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, Australia will be announcing at least 12 partnerships with governments, business and non-government organisations to promote a better global environment.These are some of the practical measures that this government has taken in the 6½ years it has been in power to advance the cause of sustainable development. It is a record of which this government is proud, it is a record that has made an effective contribution and it is a record of which Dr Kemp and others will speak very proudly when they make their contributions to the meeting in Johannesburg.558114:09:005581Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, and it concerns his proposal to link family payments to parenting education. Minister, can you confirm that in the 2002-03 budget $16.5 million in funding was cut from the stronger families fund and early intervention and parenting programs—precisely the programs that you have suggested parents be required to attend? Are you also aware of comments today from Professor Stanley, who has personally briefed the Prime Minister about parenting and other programs, who has said that linking participation to payments would be `counterproductive'? Minister, how can you credibly suggest parents be required to attend parenting courses when you are in the middle of defunding those courses and the person who has given key advice to the PM on this issue has said that compulsion would be counterproductive?5582Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I thank the member for Lilley for his question, because it does raise a very important issue, I believe, for this parliament and indeed for this country, and that is the importance of the early years—from zero to five—when it comes to a child's welfare. To answer some of the specific questions—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—That is our policy.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—He says it is his policy. So you are agreeing with me—that is very good to hear.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Certainly this coalition government is absolutely committed to improving the health, wellbeing and welfare of all Australian families, and indeed all children. The member for Lilley asked a number of specific questions, and before I answer them I would like to just state that, at the moment, there is more Commonwealth funding going towards families that there has ever been in Australia's history.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—What about the $16.5 million?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley has asked his question!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—That funding, I might just reiterate, is over $11.4 billion in family tax benefit, $1.4 billion in child-care benefit, just under $6 billion in parenting payment and an enormous amount is going out on maternity allowance and immunisation. PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—What about the stronger families package? Answer the question!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Yes, we do have a package called the Stronger Families and Stronger Communities package, which was put in place a number of years ago, where we had $240 million worth. We still have $144 million which we will be spending in a whole range of areas. One of the key areas that money is going towards is a longitudinal study over the next nine years, which will cost about $20 million. There were some reductions made across the whole board—not in those particular programs—as a way of ensuring that we balanced this budget. You opposed some important measures in the Senate in the area of PBS and in the area of the disability support pension.But the key point—and I am very glad the member for Lilley has raised this—is that I do believe it is absolutely essential that we in this country kick off a proper discussion and debate on the importance of the early years. This is not about cutting welfare payments; there is no such suggestion. What it is about is ensuring that as a nation we give more emphasis to enhancing the skills of parents, particularly young parents, when they bring a child into the world.00AMRKing, Catherine, MPMs King—What about the funding?XJ6Mr ANTHONY—It is interesting that we get this interjection. I notice that the member for Gellibrand is listening, and I think she has played a critical role in going around and talking to many of the people that I have also spoken to about building an early childhood development agenda. Why shouldn't we? Because we know—whether it is at the emotional, educational or behavioural level—it is those early years that are absolutely crucial in making sure that a child has a full and healthy life. The issues that we need to confront today are that we still have over one in 10 children who are considered to be obese, one in five who are overweight, an alarming increase in the number of children with diabetes, an alarming increase in the seeds that are being sown when it comes to heart disease—particularly for children with diabetes—and of course the issue of mental health. It is extremely important that we have an open and fair debate on the importance of the early years through early intervention and prevention, and I am happy to do that. I will continue to advocate this course, just as the government will.558314:14:005583Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—My question is to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister update the House on the status of Australia's request for exclusions from the United States decision to impose tariffs on imported steel products? What impact does this have on jobs in the Australian steel industry, particularly in areas such as my electorate of Flinders?5583Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for his question, and I recognise his keen interest in the steel industry and exports from his electorate of Flinders. Last Friday there was more good news for the steel industry and for the 26,000 Australians who are employed in Australia's steel industry. Last week it was announced that OneSteel's galvanised cold-form steel angles and flats had received an exclusion from the tariffs under the US safeguard action. That means that Australia's requests have now reached a success rate of eight out of the nine exclusions we have sought for products. That is a significant outcome from where we were in March this year, when the US administration announced its intention to impose tariffs on imported steel under a section 201 safeguard action. Since that day, we have not stopped fighting on behalf of the 26,000 workers in the steel industry, and we have been significantly successful. The first thing we did was to pull together all the stakeholders in the steel industry in Australia—which included the manufacturers, the exporters, the unions, governments—and have a steel summit. You will recall, Mr Speaker, the one that the member for Rankin and the dearly departed member for Cunningham tried to criticise with so many behind him. The former member for Cunningham was a good bloke. He very actively pursued the interests of his constituents in the Australian steel industry in a very constructive way. We established a monitoring task force that has been monitoring what has been happening in terms of imported product coming into Australia, with the possibility of displaced product in the international marketplace. That work has been ongoing in conjunction with all the stakeholders in the industry, the union movement and the state governments.The important point to make is that by April of this year we had secured exclusion of BHP's hot-rolled steel product, which was quite significant. Since then we have been successful in achieving a succession of exclusions for a small range of items that we export to the United States. These exclusions are for the duration of the three-year safeguard action—not just for 12 months. As I said, we have now achieved exclusion for eight out of the nine exclusion requests, with the latest one being last week. ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—That is very good.SU5Mr VAILE—It is an excellent outcome. The companies involved include Ryco Hydraulics, and all of their requests for product exclusion have been granted. All of OneSteel's requests for product exclusion have been granted. All of BHP's slab and hot-rolled steel products have been excluded. We are still arguing the case on the ninth of our applications, and that is the cold-rolled products, which we are still pursuing with the United States in a diplomatic way. With that result, obviously Australia's steel industry has been very appreciative of our having secured its future and the future of its 26,000 workers, and our exporters have been quick to acknowledge the government's positive role in obtaining these exclusions from the tariffs. We have received a letter from the Managing Director of Ryco, which says:We really appreciate the work that has gone into making this possible. This means extra employment here in Australia to benefit all.We have a letter from Mark Gell, the General Manager of External Affairs with OneSteel. It says:The recent exemptions by the US government will allow OneSteel to further develop the US market as a potential export destination for its high value-added products. We believe these exemptions would not have been possible without the government's persistence and efforts. We have a letter from David Goodwin from BHP, which says:The government's support has been vital to the very good outcome which has been achieved in extremely difficult circumstances. From the outset, we took a path of lobbying the American administration following this decision and arguing the very sound case on behalf of Australia's steel industry. We engaged constructively with the stakeholders in this industry, and we have achieved an outcome that has seen eight out of our nine requests receive exemption or exclusion from tariffs. On anybody's measure, that is a very good outcome for the 26,000 workers in the Australian steel industry.558414:19:005584Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it concerns the family payments system. Prime Minister, why do parents who receive family tax benefit part B and who return to work during the financial year and play by your rules, notifying Centrelink immediately of change of income, still get large debts at the end of the year? Why are you putting 1.2 million families and their 2.1 million children at risk of debt, and why did you personally authorise the stripping of thousands of families' tax returns for debts that they should never have incurred? Prime Minister, why won't you change the system so that honest Australian families are not put under further financial pressure at the end of each financial year?5584Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I refute completely the suggestion that people have been denied benefits to which they are entitled. This is a very simple issue: if somebody is paid more than they are entitled to under the law, it is not unreasonable on a proper basis for that money to be repaid.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Immediately?ZD4Mr HOWARD—This is a bit like the Labor Party's policy on border protection. They say they are in favour of it but then they run around implying that they would change it. The reality is that the system we have introduced provides for certain benefits. If people's income changes and there is money that they have been overpaid, they are expected to pay it back. There is nothing wrong with that, and that is the basis on which it operates. As for the reference the Leader of the Opposition made to people's entitlements being stripped, it has long been a principle that, if a debt is owed to the Commonwealth, it is set off against a taxation refund entitlement. That has been used for a long time. The former government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member, as I understand it, would regularly have recovered overpayments of family allowance and the like through the taxation system. There is nothing new about it. If you were to listen to the Leader of the Opposition's question and did not understand precisely what the situation was, you would imagine that we were taking back money that people were entitled to. We are not. I operate on the basis that, if you are entitled to more at the end of the year, you should be paid it and, if you have been paid more than you are entitled to, it is not unreasonable for the rest of the taxpaying community to expect that money to be returned. I think most Australians agree with that.558414:22:005584Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of recent surveys that detail the views held by international forecasters toward the Australian economy?5584Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Pearce for her question. I can report to her that most international forecasts are still forecasting strong growth in Australia in 2002 and in 2003. Of the 15 countries covered by the Economist survey, Australia is expected to lead the field with the strongest growth in 2002 and in 2003. Consensus Economics also expects Australia to have the fastest growth of the industrialised world in 2002 and the second fastest in 2003. The threats that we see to the Australian economy to some degree in the rural sector, with bad seasonal conditions, particularly in New South Wales, will have an effect on production and, of course, the international situation remains weak. But Australia is in a strong economic position today because of the economic reforms which have been put in place by this government—economic reforms like repaying $62 billion of Labor Party debt, which strengthened our economy, and locking in low inflation outcomes by reforming Australia's taxation system, which gave our exporters a go on world markets. Few people could forget that the Labor Party opposed taxation reform every step of the way in the last parliament. Nobody would be a greater political opportunist than the Leader of the Opposition, who opposed tax reform all the way and, after losing the last election, suddenly lost all his interest in roll-back. There is a phrase we have not heard in this parliament for a while: `the Labor Party policy on roll-back'. The Leader of the Opposition said that Australia would have its economy king hit by the GST. He said, 18 months ago:I believe we're in the midst of a very serious downturn. I believe the single most contributing factor to that downturn has been the GST ...That was said 18 months ago. Notwithstanding that—DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—That was true, was it? 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer will address his remarks through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, he just intervened to say that that was true. Notwithstanding the fact, `We're in the midst of a very serious downturn' is what he said and he now claims that it was true. Here is an economy which shrugged off a recession in the US in 2001, which grows faster in 2002 than other developed countries and which is forecast to grow faster in 2003 and the Leader of the Opposition, for political opportunistic reasons, was forecasting a severe downturn. K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—This is very boring. CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Werriwa interjects. We congratulate him on his new appointment as the shadow minister for community safety. What a sense of fun the Leader of the Opposition has! We begin by putting up a plan for community safety for the taxidrivers of Western Sydney. We do congratulate that sense of naughtiness that the Leader of the Opposition had in his new appointments.What put the Australian economy in the strong position it is in today is the reforms of this government. Those reforms were fought every step of the way by the Australian Labor Party. They are still fighting against our budget reforms in the Australian Senate and we say: if Australia wants better economic prospects, withdraw the opportunistic opposition in the Australian Senate, do the right thing by Australia and strengthen this economy.558514:27:005585Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it concerns family payment debts. Are you aware, Prime Minister, that as a result of a decision by your revenue minister investors in mass marketed tax schemes are entitled to a two-year interest free period to repay the tax and a full remission of penalties and interest on tax scheme debt? Are you also aware that your Minister for Family and Community Services told the Senate last week in relation to family tax benefit debts:There would be families who, rather than pay their tax debt back, would like to pay it back interest free over the years. That is not an option; I am sorry.Prime Minister, how can you justify a two-year interest free period given to tax minimisers to repay their debts while the minister insists on ordinary Australian families who have played by the rules having their tax refunds stripped immediately?5585Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—There are couple of interesting things about that question. The first interesting thing about the question is that I do not remember, last year, when many who now sit behind the Leader of the Opposition were calling for special action in relation to mass marketed tax schemes, the Labor Party at that particular time calling those people tax minimisers. PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—What about your double standards?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Double standards, Prime Minister!ZD4Mr HOWARD—My understanding is that the former Assistant Treasurer in the Keating government, George Gear, was in fact a person who ran around this building and, far from describing the people you are now talking about as tax minimisers, represented them as innocent victims of the claimed perfidy of the Australian Taxation Office.DT4Crean, Simon, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—So don't you interject `double standards' at me. It is the Leader of the Opposition on this occasion who is guilty of double standards.The simple reality in relation to the family tax benefit is twofold. The first is, as the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs has pointed out on many occasions, the size of the benefits now offered by this government on behalf of the rest of the Australian community dwarfs by comparison anything offered by the former government. I might remind the House that none of these benefits would have been possible if the policy of the Labor Party on tax reform had been followed. The Labor Party every stage of the way opposed taxation reform. It likes the political spin-off; the assumed political advantage. The member for Brand will remember his immortal phrase—it will certainly live long in my memory—when he said to his caucus, `We're going to surf into victory on the back of unpopularity of the GST.' In other words, you ran the most opportunistic campaign. None of these benefits would have been the least bit possible if it had not been for the introduction of tax reform. Now you parade yourselves as the great defenders of the Australian family. This government has done more in the area of family benefits than any other government since World War II, and I am immensely proud of what we have been able to do. What we have done in recent years would not have been possible without taxation reform. We had the courage to introduce tax reform. You opportunistically opposed it. The Australian public can see through your completely transparent position.558614:31:005586Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the results of the government's aviation policies in delivering a more robust Australian aviation industry? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative policies?5586Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question and note his real interest in regional aviation, representing an electorate the size of many European countries put together. I am pleased to be able to report that the Australian aviation industry, underpinned by sound government policy, is making a very strong recovery from the traumas of the last 12 months. Early last week in this House I touched on the creation of a new airline, Regional Express—Rex—which will continue to serve all routes previously serviced by Kendell and Hazelton, which were Ansett subsidiaries. The launch of Rex follows the successful sale of Flightwest, Skywest and Aeropelican. All of them are now providing regular passenger transport services to regional Australia under new ownership. We supported that process with some $18 million under the Rapid Route Recovery Scheme provided to some 18 operators across the nation, which enabled the provision of essential air services after the collapse of Ansett.In recent days we have seen further evidence that Australian aviation is in sound and improving shape. Last week we saw Qantas record a net profit of $428 million, while Sydney airport also recorded a very strong improvement in its after-tax profit from around $23 million to $87 million—all at a time when, importantly, it ought to be noted, airlines and airports around the world are doing it very tough. During that time Qantas, in particular, reported that its staff numbers grew by about 1½ thousand. I think all of us would welcome profitable airlines. That offers us better and stronger services into the future. We also want profitable airports. These figures indicate that we are well on the way to achieving both. Qantas has also announced that it plans to take delivery of no fewer than 35 brand new aircraft in the short to medium term. Importantly, the release of these figures coincides with the government's decision that Qantas will remain truly Australian. Our aviation policies have also allowed Virgin to enter the market. They are continuing to grow strongly and indeed are looking to expand their fleet to a total of 50 aircraft within the next five years. Virgin have managed so far to secure access to several of the former Ansett terminals—Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra come to mind. That will further enhance their capacity to grow and compete. Regrettably, they have not yet come to an agreement with Sydney airport over the use of its former Ansett terminal. I do note that these are ultimately matters for the parties to negotiate commercially, but I urge them to resume good faith negotiations with a view to coming to satisfactory outcomes for the benefit of the travelling public.I was asked about alternative policies. We have not seen much at all in the way of alternative policies on aviation since the opportunistic but very shallowly based arguments during the last campaign about the future of Ansett. But it is never too late to turn over a new leaf. There is something constructive the opposition could do in the interests of safeguarding the future of our aviation industry, and that is to call on their union mates not to engage in the sort of irresponsible action that we saw last week when the Australian Services Union disrupted hundreds of Qantas flights nationally. That sort of action threatens the very recovery we are all looking for in aviation and in the related downstream industries—most of all tourism.558714:37:005587Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Isn't it a fact, Minister, that figures provided through this year's budget estimates process show that spending on child care has fallen from $3,770 per child-care place in 1995-96 to just $2,961 per child last year, a cut of over $800 per child-care place under the Howard government? Minister, as a result of these cuts, isn't it also a fact that the child-care sector is in crisis, with child-care workers receiving some of the lowest pay and conditions of all professionals in the country; children with disabilities being turned away from care; and huge waiting lists, especially for children in outside hours care?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Gellibrand will come to her question.83KMs ROXON—Minister, before getting up and telling us again how much money you are putting into child care—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Gellibrand will come to her question.83KMs ROXON—isn't it about time you answered the basic questions about cuts under your government and a system that is clearly in crisis?IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 144. That very lengthy question contained a great deal of argument, and I would ask you to rule the second part of the question out of order.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—For the information of the House—4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—I thought this was supposed to be a family friendly government!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I thought that the Speaker was seeking to get the attention of the House; and it is quite out of character for the member for Banks to interrupt the chair. For the information of the House, it is fair to observe that that question contained more argument than questions ought to contain. I did, in fact, interrupt the member for Gellibrand during her asking of it and ask her to come to the question. I require future questions to be somewhat more concise.5587Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I would like to thank the member for Gellibrand for her question, her range of questions or her statement—I was not quite sure. Nevertheless, I think she does raise a number of important issues when it comes to child care. I will reiterate that it is this government, it is the Liberal-National Party government, that is spending more money in child care than there has ever been spent in Australia's history—$8 billion over the next four years.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—That's not what your department said.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Gellibrand has already been extended a good deal of leniency by the chair, and so has the House, in that I have allowed the question to stand. The minister has the call and he will be extended the normal courtesies.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—To reiterate, we are spending $8 billion over the next four years. We spent $7 billion in the last six years, which was, of course, significantly more—70 per cent more—than Labor spent in its last six years of government. No matter where the figures are coming from, for the member for Gellibrand's benefit, the facts are that there are more children today—720,000 children—using Commonwealth funded child care. Indeed, we have seen a rapid increase; over 192,000 more kids in Commonwealth funded child care, predominantly since the introduction of the child-care benefit. And what a great thing that has been for parents. Why? Because the costs have gone down—by about nine per cent since July 2000—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Your funding's gone down!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—there has been a significant increase in funding, and if you ask the child-care sector—83KRoxon, Nicola, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Gellibrand!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—they will say that funding towards the child-care sector has never been as great. And we will continue to fund it. Yes, there are some hotspots, because we are finding now that a lot more demand is being created. That is why there are 2,000 more centres today than there were when the Labor Party was last in government in 1996. So these are the facts: there are 2,000 more centres, costs have gone down and there are more children in Commonwealth funded child care than there have ever been before. The member for Gellibrand does ask about child-care workers, and I think this is a serious point: yes, I think that society as a whole perhaps has to value more the work that a lot of those people do in child-care centres. It is not a de facto babysitting service, though some people may think that; they do a fantastic job. Perhaps, as this argument and as this debate expands, parents will have to value more the role that those early childhood professionals play. But I think the type of claim that is in place now for an increase of over 100 per cent is very unwise.558814:42:005588Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the Minister inform the House of ongoing concerns in the region about the threat posed by people-smuggling, and the growing level of regional cooperation to combat this crime?5588Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—First, I thank the honourable member for Barker for his question, and I recognise the interest he shows in this issue and the support he has provided to the government in its strong stand on people-smuggling issues. I think all members of the House know that the government regards people-smuggling as a serious crime that exploits people. Interestingly, people-smuggling is said to be—according to the latest figures provided to me—worth something like $20 billion a year to criminal networks, which is an extraordinary figure.Interestingly, it also continues to be a concern for other countries in our region. I note that the Pacific Islands Forum communique for the first time included a strong statement by leaders urging greater international cooperation and encouraging members to develop national strategies to combat people-smuggling. Australia has played a leading role in forging regional cooperation in the fight against people-smuggling. I do not need to remind the House of the significance of the Bali Regional Ministerial Conference, which was cohosted by my Indonesian counterpart, Hassan Wirajuda, and me. This conference was, without any doubt, a watershed event for the region. It brought together 38 ministerial level representatives from 36 countries and it provided a program of practical cooperation. I note, for example, that Thailand and New Zealand, who are the chairs of the working group set up by the Bali process, met with Australia and Indonesia in Wellington only last week in order to report on progress and take the cooperation still further steps forward.It is also worth noting that, at the ASEAN post ministerial conference meeting last month, I was invited to be the lead speaker on transnational issues, including people-smuggling. What was significant was the strong degree of support for the strong stand that Australia is taking on this issue and the expressions of concern about people-smuggling. In the last few weeks there has been a very interesting and important example of regional cooperation on people-smuggling when a boatload of 56 Sri Lankans arrived in the East Timorese capital Dili claiming that they were en route to New Zealand. The Australian government, particularly through our embassy in Dili, worked closely with the East Timorese government, the IOM and the UNHCR to stop the risky travel by these people in this very small boat. The suggestion that they would get all the way from there to New Zealand in a very small boat simply demonstrates the dimensions of the risk involved to them. What is interesting is that, as a result of this cooperation, all 56 of those Sri Lankans have now decided not to pursue any asylum claims and have agreed to voluntarily return to Sri Lanka, and the International Organisation for Migration, the IOM, is organising their repatriation. Interestingly, the East Timorese police have since deported the two Sri Lankan nationals who facilitated this people-smuggling operation. It is clear that the regional approach to people-smuggling is working; it is having a very real effect throughout the region. I was asked yesterday on a television program about this issue of people-smuggling and I think I may have said that the last boat to arrive on the mainland of Australia was in November of last year. I have been reminded this morning that it was not in November; it was in August of last year, and I note that the Jakarta head of the International Organisation for Migration was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday as saying:Clearly the message has gotten across—the door to Australia is closed.That is one of the many articulations of the success of the Australian policy.Distinguished Visitors558914:47:005589SPEAKER, 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 Kenya. The Kenyan parliamentarians are all members of the Kenyan public accounts committee. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice5589558914:47:005589Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—My question is to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Minister, with the next school holidays starting in September, can you inform the House why you believe that your child-care system is working when the government's restrictions have led to children with special needs not being able to get extra hours care in the holidays because of your decision to freeze special needs funding, and outside school hours care vacation programs and family day care schemes with double the number of children needing places than have been allocated by the government? Minister, given that you know that these problems will arise again in each state and territory when the next block of school holidays occur, what are you going to do to help these working families cope? 5589Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I am really delighted that the Labor Party is showing such interest in the policies around child care. The honourable member asks a number of serious questions, which I am very happy to answer. The first is the issue of outside school hours care. Since the Liberal-National Party have come into government, there has been a 221 per cent increase in the number of children using outside school hours care. There has been a huge increase happening under the policies of this government. As it stands now in outside school hours care—as is the case in family day care for this year—places are going to be reallocated amongst those services that may not have been using them, and we are doing that. When it comes to outside school hours care, part of the issue is funding but the other part is ensuring that there are adequate regulations and licensing at state and territory level. The responsibility, particularly for regulation, does rest with the states. I believe that this is a real issue because of the quality standard. They recognise that—that is why we have deferred the accreditation process for outside school hours care until next year.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPXJ6Mr ANTHONY—I hear the interjection from the member for Gellibrand, and even she acknowledges that it is important that we ensure that the standards are at the highest level, particularly with incoming accreditation. When it comes to the special needs scheme—Opposition members interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—If you want to listen, another interesting fact is that it has increased substantially: $10 million in 1997 to over $22 million in the past financial year. There has been a cap placed on that, as we look at that particular system to see how we can best assist those 4,400 children currently funded who have disabilities. I will be looking at a whole range of issues within child care to best try and respond to the changing demands that we have in assisting families meet work and family responsibilities, particularly with the issue of outside school hours care.559014:51:005590Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Would the Minister inform the House of the success of the government's initiative to discourage unauthorised arrivals by boat? What impact has this had on Australia's ability to provide resettlement options for refugees in urgent humanitarian need?5590Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Forde for her question. There has been a focus of some attention on these matters over this last weekend. It is appropriate to remind ourselves about the nature of the decisions that we had to take and the impact of those decisions. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs mentioned a moment ago, there have been no boat arrivals on the Australian mainland since August last year. There were attempts to reach Australia. There were also some people who came to territories somewhat later than that and they were sent to be processed offshore. But the fact is that there has been a very substantial change in the situation that we saw up until then.Some people have asked me whether there has been a lack of proportionality in relation to these matters. The fact is that, while there were some 200 or more vessels that arrived in Australian waters over a four-year or so period, the numbers of people who were travelling went up very rapidly—from 147 some four years ago to 970 three years ago to over 4,000 two years ago. In that period up until August, some 3,500 people were seeking to access Australia. With the very large number of people that we believe were in Indonesia at that time and further along the pipeline, intent on travelling to Australia, it would not be unreasonable to assume that, if we had not acted, we were looking at potentially 12,000 people. The steps that we took, which included returns, the Pacific solution, the matters mentioned by the foreign minister, the Bali conference and the assistance that we have received from countries in this region, have turned that situation around. What are the implications of that? If we were really dealing always, and in every case, with refugees who had an urgent need for a resettlement outcome, one perhaps would not worry. But when you have people smugglers choosing for you, some people who will be refugees, some people who may not, all you have is a group of people, even if they obtain refugee status in Australia, who are in exactly the same circumstances as 14 million other people who have been assessed and found to be refugees elsewhere in the world. The question you always have to ask yourself is: what would you be doing if you really wanted to help the most vulnerable refugees—those in situations where they cannot return home, those in situations where they are faced with an immediate danger? It may well be people who are in mixed relationships or people who have a very high profile. The reality is that what we have been able to do now, as Australians, is to increase substantially our effort to assist with the resettlement of refugees who are in those situations, as well as those who come under the special humanitarian program. Let me make it very clear what that means. What it has meant for this year is that the offshore refugee and humanitarian programs have been able to accommodate for the year 2001-02, the financial year just finished, 8,416 people. Prior to that we were looking at it being 6,500. There has been a substantial increase in the number of people we are able to accommodate.If the situation that we have seen since then continues, I cannot assert positively that there will not be further boat arrivals. We know that people are intent on trying to reopen smuggling operations if they can. We know that that is happening. But if we are able to hold the line on these matters, hopefully with the support of the parliament and the opposition we have the prospect of being able to settle over 10,000 people during the current program year. For those people who have special needs, nobody should complain that we are making sure that Australia is able to determine who ought to be able to help them, and it is not being determined for us by people smugglers. 559114:57:005591Windsor, Antony, MPMr WINDSOR009LPNew EnglandIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Under the Constitution, what capacity does this parliament have to bind future parliaments to provide services guaranteed by this parliament?5591Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am flattered that the member for New England should have such confidence in my understanding of constitutional law as to invite me to give a legal opinion, but I will pass up that opportunity. There is a rough prospect that the member for New England may have been thinking of legislation, for example, to impose a community service obligation on a telecommunications carrier. When I went to the Sydney University Law School, I read of a fellow called Dyson and it put me in mind of some opposition policies, of course. He said that there was a doctrine that said one parliament could not bind another—and that is right.4T4Melham, Daryl, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Banks!ZD4Mr HOWARD—We should always operate under the assumption that a law passed by one parliament can always be repealed by another parliament, and I would not try and pretend otherwise. That, of course, is a very good reason for not changing the present government. I can think of a plethora of laws from those who sit opposite. Just imagine how the Labor Party would apply that doctrine to border protection legislation. Just think how they would apply that doctrine to laws relating to family benefits. I thank the member for New England for asking me this question. It gives me a whole new stream of consciousness about the dangers of electing a Labor government.Let me assure the member for New England that in relation to Telstra, which I am sure is in the honourable member's mind, our policy is that we are not going to sell any further shares in Telstra unless we are satisfied that services in the bush are up to scratch. We have appointed an inquiry. Three very reputable Australians are going to have a look at that. When they give us that report, we will then know whether those services are up to scratch. We remain committed to legislative community service obligations. It is true that if this government were defeated at the next election it would be open to a future government to change and take away the community service obligation. So I think what the member for New England has done is to remind the parliament that, when it comes to guaranteeing telecommunication services in the bush, it is always dangerous to elect a Labor government.559115:00:005591Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Are there any threats to continuing jobs growth in the car industry? Would the minister inform the House of the government's response to the unions' call for a car manufacturing roundtable?5591Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Boothby for his question. I know how important the motor industry is to him and how it is always on his mind. That is understandable, because the motor industry is the heart of the Australian manufacturing sector and it directly employs some 55,000 people. Unfortunately, three times over the past year the industry has been brought to the brink of a standstill because of strikes orchestrated by the AMWU, a union that has donated some $3 million to the Labor Party over the last few years and which controls the largest block vote in the Victorian ALP conference. As if he has not already done enough damage, Dougie Cameron, the AMWU boss, is threatening further disruption if the Productivity Commission report is not to his liking.The most recent development is a call by the ACTU for the creation of an industry council comprising chief executives and union officials in this industry. If this council leads to a greater focus on workplace bargaining, if this council means less industrial disruption and no illegal strikes, then it may be a positive thing. But if this provides just another platform for the AMWU, if it provides yet another forum to promote pattern bargaining, if it turns out to be a reward for industrial disruption, then it is the last thing that this industry needs. As far as the ACTU is concerned, it seems to want the re-creation of the accord in one industry as a dry run for the Accord Mark IX that it has been promised by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition runs around saying that he wants to reduce union power, but the Sydney Morning Herald says:A secret deal Simon Crean has made—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked about a roundtable concerning the trade unions. He was not invited to make comment about the Leader of the Opposition or anything else other than that roundtable between unions and the car industry.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. The minister's answer has been relevant to the question asked.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Sydney Morning Herald says:A secret deal Simon Crean has made guaranteeing a big upgrade in union influence is poised to elevate the ACTU secretary—who is promoting this council—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Further to the previous point of order, the question to the minister did not contain any provocative conclusion as to other policies that he might be aware of. It was a very narrowly based question. There is no way in the world that the minister's answer now could be deemed to be relevant to that narrowly based question. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister was asked a question about jobs growth and about a car industry roundtable. I understood that the Australian Council of Trade Unions had a seat at that roundtable, and it was in that context that I allowed him to continue. I am listening to the minister's reply.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—That is very true, Mr Speaker. Under this secret deal by the Leader of the Opposition, the person who is promoting this council, Greg Combet, is being promoted `to the position of top powerbroker in the Labor Party'—that was the authoritative statement by that great paper of record, the Sydney Morning Herald. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to come clean on the secret deal that he is foisting on the Australian people, lest the Australian people conclude that he is nothing but a failed union leader who is way out of his depth.559215:05:005592McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware that, on his visit to Australia in 1986, Pope John Paul II said:Australia has a long and proud tradition of settling industrial disputes and promoting co-operation by its almost unique system of arbitration and conciliation. Over the years this system has helped to defend the rights of the workers and promote their well being, while at the same time taking into account the needs and the future of the whole community.Minister, how do you justify continually undermining cooperative workplace relations under the supervision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission?5592Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am very happy to take the Pope's advice on religious matters but I have never been accustomed to taking the Pope's advice on political matters. I take my own counsel on political matters. When it does come to politics I should say that his Holiness the Pope does not have a bad record, having destroyed communism and having torn down a lot of governments which members opposite had a lot of sympathy for.559315:08:005593Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10—My question is to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Will the minister advise the House of any information that indicates continued growth in Australia's small business sector? Minister, what are the impediments to this growth and are there any alternative views worthy of consideration?5593Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I thank the member for Canning for his question—someone who has real experience in small business, unlike every Labor senator and quite a swag of Labor members of this place. Many people in this House will remember these words:... in relation to the business numbers—83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—If you can find them.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Rankin!DK6Mr HOCKEY—These words came from the member for Brand:..in relation to the business numbers ...the GST—... is a disaster on 1 July. Let's not put too fine a point on all of this.The member for Hotham said:There is going to be confusion for mums trying to prepare the kids lunches and there is going to be massive confusion amongst the shopkeepers.83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Rankin is warned!DK6Mr HOCKEY—There is this little classic from the member for Hunter, who was the shadow minister for small business. He said: `This actual experience is that up to 20 per cent of small firms will exit post-July 1'—after the introduction of the GST. `We say exit'—the royal `we'—`because they won't necessarily go broke but surely many of them will just simply decide that it is all too hard and not worth it.'Today, the Australian Bureau of Statistics have released some new detailed figures in relation to business creation for the 12 months after the introduction of the goods and services tax. I am pleased to inform the House that in the 12 months after the introduction of the new tax system Australians created 47,000 new small businesses—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—They are all $2 shelf companies.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne.DK6Mr HOCKEY—which is the fastest growth in small business since 1996. In relation to retail accommodation and cafes and restaurants—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—They were all created by your mates.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I warn the member for Melbourne! It is clear that the courtesy I extend to him in simply asking him to abide by the standing orders is simply ignored.DK6Mr HOCKEY—I know the member for Hotham was particularly concerned about retail and restaurants and cafes. The number for retail accommodation, cafes and restaurants was increased by 1,200 new small businesses in the 12 months after the introduction of the new tax system.Members will remember that question time after question time the Labor Party would stand up in this place and say, `The new tax system is going to be a disaster for Australia's small businesses'—we remember it on this side of the House. In fact, 1.2 million small businesses remember the fear campaign run by the Labor Party. Yet for the 12 months after the introduction of the new tax system, after we reduced company tax to 30 per cent, after we abolished financial institutions duty, after we reduced excise taxes, after we reduced personal income tax so that 80 per cent of Australians pay no more than 30c in the dollar, after we abolished provisional tax, after we halved capital gains tax—every one of which the Labor Party opposed as part of the new tax system which they opposed lock, stock and barrel—the shameful act was the part taken by the member for Hotham when he said that Australia's small businesses would burn on the new tax system. In fact, the opposite is the truth. It would come as no surprise to the member for Canning that when we keep putting up legislation in this place that we believe is going to help small businesses—such as the removal of the unfair dismissal laws, such as small business protection through the Trade Practices Act reform—the Labor Party not only opposes our proposed changes to help small business but in fact in the Senate last week wanted to extend the unfair dismissal laws to cover all casual workers. That one stroke, if it had become law, would have wiped out half the hospitality industry in Australia.It is no surprise that the Labor Party takes this sort of view. As we heard the other day, the newest Labor senator stood up in the Senate and talked about how the unions were the moral bedrock of Australian society. I have been looking at some of the words of the colleagues of Senator `moral bedrock'. Senator Buckland, a Labor senator from South Australia, said last Thursday:I have never known a fair dismissal.Never is a pretty big call. He said:I have never known a fair dismissal.That might have something to do with the fact that Senator Buckland, before he came into this place, worked for 15 years as an official of the Federated Ironworkers Association and the Federation of Australian Manufacturing Employees. Of the 28 Labor senators, all 28 have never worked in a small business. So there is now a 100 per cent rule: that is 100 per cent for the unions, zero for small business.559415:14:005594Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—My question is addressed to the foreign minister. Is the minister aware of reports today alleging that Australian intelligence services intercepted communications from representatives of the Norwegian Embassy during the Tampa crisis last year? Is the minister also aware of reports today that the Norwegian government raised this matter with him in February this year? Can the foreign minister inform the House whether representatives of the government of Norway have raised this matter with the government of Australia or not?5594Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The Norwegian ambassador came to see me at one stage. My recollection is that it may have been in February—I am not entirely sure of that; I would have to check—and he raised, I think on the basis of newspaper reports that had appeared in the News Ltd press, the issue of allegations of Australian intelligence interceptions of the Tampa in the context of the Tampa's communications with Norway. I do not recall the exact details of his questions but they were along those sorts of lines—do not hold me to the detail.The point is that we follow the policy in this government that the Hawke and Keating governments followed—and the Fraser government and the Whitlam government and all the governments before them—and that is: we do not discuss intelligence matters with foreign governments and we do not discuss intelligence matters publicly, for very good reasons. All Australian governments have taken that view for the best of reasons. I am glad Australian governments have done that because, if we were to pursue a different kind of policy, it would destroy the efficacy of our intelligence services.559415:16:005594Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing. As this week is dedicated to understanding hearing loss throughout our community as part of National Hearing Awareness Week, can the minister inform the House of the government's efforts to assist in the promotion of this worthy goal and the government's efforts in providing hearing services to all Australians? In particular, can he advise the House how this assistance might be sought by members and senators?5594Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—As honourable members may know, this is Hearing Awareness Week. I thank the honourable member for Mallee for his question and note his longstanding personal and professional interest in improving the hearing health of all Australians. Indeed, last Friday in Bendigo the honourable member launched a publication entitled Choices, which is a publication produced by Australian Hearing Services for parents of children newly diagnosed with hearing loss. It includes information about specialist services from all the various educational and support organisations as well as from parents and audiologists.Hearing loss is the second most prevalent of health conditions in Australia. The sad fact is that almost one in five Australians are estimated to have hearing loss, and it is estimated that 30 per cent of females and 40 per cent of males over the age of 60 have some degree of significant hearing loss. It has further been projected that that incidence of hearing loss in Australia will grow into the future, estimates indicating a minimum increase of 20 per cent by 2020.The honourable member asked about the services which this government provides for those with hearing loss. In fact, currently there are over 330,000 eligible clients receiving hearing services throughout this program. The very successful voucher scheme run by the Australian government, which was first brought in by the Howard government, provides substantial improvement in terms of hearing, particularly for those who are concessional card holders, for pensioners and veterans and for all children and young people under the age of 21. Indeed, the Commonwealth government's annual expenditure on hearing is some $160 million. In addition to that, some of the best research relating to hearing is undertaken in Australia, particularly through the Australian National Acoustics Laboratory, headed up by Harvey Dillon, whose work in this area is of world renown.As the honourable member indicated, this is Hearing Awareness Week. I take this opportunity of encouraging all Australians to take the opportunity to have a free hearing test. No matter what people's age or circumstances, there is an opportunity this week to have a free hearing test in centres right around Australia. All people need to do to avail themselves of this opportunity is to telephone 131797. I encourage all the occupants of this House—the members and senators and other occupants of Parliament House—to also take a free hearing test. There will be a booth established near Aussies; so if you are going down for a cappuccino or a latte, drop in and have a hearing test. 559515:20:005595Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Minister, do you recall crossing the floor in August 1988 and voting with the then Labor government on a statement affirming Australia's commitment to a nondiscriminatory immigration policy? Minister, wasn't this in response to Mr Howard's—the now Prime Minister's—intemperate remarks on Asian immigration? Minister, will you once again show political courage and allow coalition MPs to vote in support of Labor's amendment to the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 to get children out from behind the razor wire of detention centres?R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Point to your badge, Philip.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Grayndler.5595Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Lalor for her question. Let me just say that back in 1988, when I voted on that issue, I voted on the substantial resolution, which made it clear that there should be proper criteria for selection of people. Nothing that we sought to affirm in maintaining nondiscriminatory principles was to derogate at all from the proper application of criteria for determining who should or should not be able to enter Australia. I make that point very clearly to begin with.The second point is that the fact that it was a ploy—and I knew it was one at the time—did not in any way deviate me from asserting positively my commitment to nondiscriminatory principles for migration in relation to race, religion and like factors, which was the reason I voted in the way in which I did. As minister, I have never been asked to compromise myself in relation to those principles, because the Prime Minister affirms them as strongly as I do. Let me deal with the issue about which the honourable member for Lalor has written to me, because members on this side of the House may not be aware of the nature of that correspondence.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—I've got a copy.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I am sure you do, and I do as well, and I intend to reply to your letter. I am intent on putting in place arrangements to ensure that we deal with children in detention, and their families, as humanely as possible. If there are circumstances in which it is in the best interests of particular children that they be held in alternative ways, I will continue to explore the extent to which alternative detention models can be used. In relation to the first part of the proposition the honourable member for Lalor put to me—that all unaccompanied minors should not be held in detention—there are circumstances in which unaccompanied minors may be more appropriately held in detention. Let me say what those are. Firstly, when an unaccompanied minor has been accompanied by other family members—83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—Well, they're not unaccompanied.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—They are not accompanied by their immediate family.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lalor will cease interjecting and the minister will respond through the chair.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Let me just say, the substantial reason I would not be in favour of making amendments to the Migration Act to try to develop detailed criteria of the sort that the honourable member tries to put in place by using general words is that a whole host of situations would arise in which there would be questions of interpretation, and litigation would arise from the very fact that you had put those provisions in the act. That is what it would lead to. When you have had the opposition out there arguing, as they have—83LGillard, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lalor. I have warned the member for Lalor and exercised a great deal of tolerance. She will reciprocate or face the consequences.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The opposition are out there arguing that we should streamline the system for dealing with those people who arrive without lawful authority and make asylum claims in Australia. That is what they are arguing—that we should reduce the time people are held in detention.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—To process them.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The opposition leader makes the point that we should reduce the time it takes to process people and, therefore, reduce the time they are ultimately held in detention.DT4Crean, Simon, MP0J4Mr RUDDOCK—He says, `Well, send them back.' Every time you put in place additional matters which can lead to litigation, you are opening the gateway for the members of my profession to ensure that people remain in detention for longer periods of time, as they test the limits of every possible opportunity to obtain a different outcome—whether in relation to whether they are on a form of bridging visa or to whether they are released into the community or to whether or not their claims are able to be substantiated. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was pressed on a previous occasion in relation to whether or not, in arguing for the release of children, he was arguing for the release of families—that is, those people who seek to be trafficked into Australia and who bring children with them—he said, `No, I wasn't,' as he says again today. Yet the proposition that is being put to me by the opposition is that we should have a mechanism by which children with families should be released—and their families. That is the proposition that I am being asked to agree to.I am, as I have always been, prepared to look reasonably at whether or not there are alternative ways of dealing with people. The reason we have very few unaccompanied minors in detention today is that I took the decision to have them put into the care of foster families, with the cooperation of the government of South Australia. That is a decision I took. There is no need for an amendment to legislation to achieve that outcome, unless all you are trying to do is to make a political point about these matters. Let me make it very clear: the political point that you are making is that the Labor Party is about introducing into legislation new measures which will keep people in detention longer and in Australia longer, enabling the whole system to be exploited in exactly the same way that it has been. If you think I have acted reasonably in relation to these matters, you should be more than happy to leave the legislation as it is. 559715:28:005597King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. What measures has the government adopted to promote the economic advancement of Indigenous Australians through investment in sound commercial ventures that allow Indigenous participation in the management of those ventures. Is the minister aware of any alternative measures?5597Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I welcome the opportunity to be able to answer a question in the parliament on Indigenous affairs, because we on this side of the parliament do have a very intense and keen interest in advancing the interests of our first peoples. Of course, what we have sought to do is to promote very positively economic advancement for Indigenous Australians. We see that as being for many of them a real and new opportunity for advancement.We have given a commitment to improving economic circumstances of Indigenous Australians by focusing very much upon individuals through encouraging self-reliance and independence. We have encouraged home ownership as a means of promoting economic independence. We have increased opportunities for Indigenous people to generate better economic returns from their land and we are increasing opportunities for economic independence by stimulating business opportunities in which Indigenous people can be involved. A number of agencies that report to me have been involved in that. ATSIC has provided over $550 million for economic development activities in the last financial year, and that has assisted a thousand Indigenous commercial ventures. The TSRA, the Torres Strait Regional Authority, provides almost $3 million for economic development opportunities. I saw one of those recently at Coconut Island, which I visited. They are involved in the development of a tourist enterprise—a very important initiative on their part. The Indigenous Land Corporation is introducing a stronger focus on economic outcomes through its land acquisition strategy.The very important demonstration of our commitment was the establishment last year of a new organisation, Indigenous Business Australia. Their role is to advance the commercial and economic interests of Indigenous people by accumulating and using a capital asset for the benefit of Indigenous people. They have invested directly in a number of businesses. They have a number of joint venture partners, which include Indigenous communities as well as people with expertise. They currently have an asset base of $70 million and are involved in 23 substantial investments. I have seen some of those recently. One is in the electorate of the member for Kalgoorlie, I think, at Monkey Mia in Western Australia. The famous dolphin resort there is now part owned by IBA and the local Indigenous community, as a result of a strategic investment that has been placed.They are involved in a number of other major activities, including the Foxleigh coal mine in Queensland's Bowen Basin, which provides jobs for Indigenous people, and the Gagudju crocodile hotel in Kakadu, a 110-room hotel located within the boundaries of the township. Of course, that helps as well to provide extra economic opportunities for Indigenous people in that region.I have been asked to contain my remarks, but I could expand considerably on the range of economic opportunities that we are expanding for Indigenous Australians. It is a good record, and I am glad the parliament has had an opportunity to hear something of it.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations559715:33:005597Mr CREAN,MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—Yes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—My claim is in relation to the Minister for Workplace Relations, who made reference in question time today to an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, alleging that there was some secret deal between me and the ACTU Secretary. The very morning that that newspaper article appeared, I denied the allegation on national radio. No-one has sought to raise it since except the Minister for Workplace Relations in this chamber. He has misrepresented my position. The report is wrong: there is no secret deal, and I would ask you to keep this in mind when he tries to run it next time.15:34:005598Ms GILLARD,MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?83LMs GILLARD,MPMs GILLARD—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.83LMs GILLARD,MPMs GILLARD—In question time today, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs said that I was intending to promote litigation on who was an unaccompanied detained child through my proposed amendment to the Migration Legislation Amendment (No.1 ) Bill. The definition I use of an unaccompanied detained child is that which appears in the government's own Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946. 15:34:005598Mr TOLLNER,MPMr TOLLNER00AN4SolomonLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?00AN4Mr TOLLNER,MPMr TOLLNER—Yes, most seriously.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.00AN4Mr TOLLNER,MPMr TOLLNER—Last week, on Wednesday 21 August, Senator Crossin abused parliamentary privilege when she made this particular statement.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Solomon must be aware that that sort of accusation should only be made by way of a substantive motion. I invite him—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—If it were not for the assistance I am getting from those on my left, I would take more decisive action. I will allow the member for Solomon to continue, but he must not reflect on Senator Crossin as he has just done.00AN4Mr TOLLNER,MPMr TOLLNER—Certainly, Mr Speaker. Last week on 21 August, Senator Crossin said during a speech in the Senate:The reassurances given by the minister that if families report changes to their income they will not incur debts are simply wrong. Even this week in the Northern Territory we have had two examples of that. In fact, 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.'K26Latham, Mark, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Werriwa! The member for Solomon has the call and he will come to the point of his misrepresentation.00AN4Mr TOLLNER,MPMr TOLLNER—Senator Crossin failed to substantiate that allegation with me prior to making those comments in the Senate and has since failed to respond to my phone calls and substantiate the allegation. The allegation is completely untrue—it never happened: I would not send a lost dog to the member for Lingiari, and Senator Crossin—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Solomon will resume his seat. He has indicated where he has been misrepresented.55981The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:559882483N83YPG6Ms Hall;Ms Hoare;Ms MacklinTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:· That increases to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in the 2002 budget will hit those that can least afford it, families and pensioners.· That this Government should remember the commitments made before the 2001 election in regard to the cost of prescription drugs.We therefore pray that the House oppose the Howard-Costello plan to increase the cost of prescription drugs for Australians.20Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 20 citizens),30Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare (from 30 citizens) and774Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin (from 774 citizens).5599277584CGT4Mr Cameron Thompson;Mr TrussTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain aged care facility residents, their families, friends and representatives draws to the attention of the House:· the substantial increase in time spent by aged care facility staff with paperwork, at the expense of hands-on care, due to the requirement to record in minute detail the care provided to justify subsidies from the Department of Health and Ageing;· the excessive paper trails required to meet accreditation standards; and· this increased time burden means less time available to physically care for the residents of aged care facilities.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to reduce the required paperwork in aged care facilities or increase their subsidies for additional staff.22Mr Cameron Thompson84CMr Cameron Thompson (from 22 citizens) and2753Mr TrussGT4Mr Truss (from 2,753 citizens).559971030R36Mr AlbaneseTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House the persecution Falun Dafa in China.Falun Dafa is a peaceful spiritual practice with over 100 million adherents in over 40 countries. In July 1999 the Chinese Central Government launched a propaganda campaign against Falun Dafa and declared the movement to be illegal. Tens of thousands of practitioners have been imprisoned without trial, while 159 have been tortured to death. This crackdown is clearly a breach of fundamental human rights. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House urge China's leadership to immediately:1) Lift the ban on Falun Dafa and restore its legal status.2) Withdraw the warrant of arrest for Mr Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Dafa.3) Cease the torture of all detained Falun Dafa practitioners and release them forthwith.4) Guarantee the full civil rights of released practitioners and their relatives.5) Rectify all false propaganda used to defame Falun Dafa.We further request that the Australian government issue a clear statement supporting the right of Falun Dafa practitioners to freely exercise their beliefs, and condemning the aforementioned abuses of human rights.71030Mr AlbaneseR36Mr Albanese (from 71,030 citizens).559917KL6Mr AndrenTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia, namely `Radio for all Australians Association Inc' draws to the attention of the House the need for the establishment of a radio station for the benefit of those people who suffer the inability to read the spoken word and for the benefit of the community in general. 5388The Federal Government has spent millions of dollars making sure that deaf people in this country receive television services, but for those who can't read or write, which is some 6.8 million Australians, there is a need for a special radio licence and frequency, so these special programs can be broadcast all over Australia.Your petitioners therefore request the House to urgently consider the need for the introduction of legislation to provide this essential service.17Mr AndrenKL6Mr Andren (from 17 citizens).5599332K6Mr BroughTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House their opposition to food irradiation and the building of the nuclear irradiation facility proposed for Narangba, in Queensland, as well as the Electron beam irradiation facility proposed for North Queensland.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:· Prohibit the establishment of a nuclear irradiation facility or X-Ray or Electron beam irradiation facility at any location in Australia.· Ban the import, export and sale of irradiated food in Australia.· Call on the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council (ANZFSC) and the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) to amend Standards A-17 and 1.5.3 - Irradiation of Foods in the Food Standards Code to ban food irradiation outright in Australia and New Zealand.33Mr Brough2K6Mr Brough (from 33 citizens).5600314SD4Mr CadmanTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that we are concerned at the destruction of human embryos by scientists extracting embryonic stem cells and concerned at proposals by scientists to clone human embryos for the purpose of extracting embryonic stem cells.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will:1) Oppose the creation of embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells and any other scientific purpose (therapeutic cloning);2) Oppose the use of already existing embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells and any other scientific purpose;3) Support, encourage and fund scientific research using adult stem cells from all sources including umbilical cord blood.314Mr CadmanSD4Mr Cadman (from 314 citizens).560017983RMr EdwardsTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the state of Western Australia calls upon the Commonwealth Government to grant an MRI Medicare licence to Western Australia's only specialist children's hospital, Princess Margaret.An MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine is an essential diagnostic tool for a range of paediatric medical conditions.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Commonwealth provide children in Western Australia with access to Medicare MRI scans at Princess Margaret Hospital.179Mr Edwards83RMr Edwards (from 179 citizens).56002083NMs HallTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the growing desire for Australia to become a republic.Your petitioners therefore call on the House to conduct a plebiscite asking the Australian people if Australia should become a republic with an Australian citizen as Head of State in place of the Queen.20Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 20 citizens).560019183NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We, the undersigned, call on the Federal Government to extend its plan to encourage doctors to outer metropolitan areas including the Central Coast.There is a chronic shortage of doctors in the area and people told are waiting between seven and 14 days to get an appointment with their doctor.Doctors are overworked and people's lives are being put at risk by the chronic shortage of doctors in the area.The average doctor patient ratio throughout Australia is one doctor to 1,000 people. In the northern part of Wyong Shire the ratio is one doctor to 2,500 people.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House encourage doctors to outer metropolitan areas including the Central Coast.191Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 191 citizens).560012583ZMrs IrwinTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of citizens of Australia calls on the House to recognise1. that defence and war service are unique and due to the nature of this service that private insurance for defence personnel is often difficult to obtain2. that Government has an obligation to adequately support members of the Defence Forces who are injured or wounded in the course of duty3. that Government has an obligation to adequately support families of defence force personnel killed on duty4. that current Defence compensation is inadequate and fails to provide financial security and certainty to Defence personnel and their families in the event of injury or death5. that members of the Defence Forces are entitled to the certainty that they and their families will be adequately compensated in the event of injury or deathand further calls on the Government to ensure that the proposed new Military Compensation Scheme rectifies the current inequities and anomalies which severely disadvantage members of the Australian Defence Forces and their families in real and financial terms.125Mrs Irwin83ZMrs Irwin (from 125 citizens).5601183ZMrs IrwinTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Commonwealth of Australia assembled in Parliament:The petition of Stephen Ernest Atkinson, an elector in the division of Fowler, dated August 15, 2002, draws the attention of the House to:1. The absolute, undeniable and irrepressible determination of the Australian people towards democratically arisen representation of the nation's citizens, and2. Australia's failure to reflect this determination at the nation's highest ceremonially representative levels owing to a Federal Constitution devised to advance competent national administration but inherently contrary to the independent and self-determined status Australia and Australians enjoy today.Your petitioner therefore requests that:(a) Australians' democratic determination, coupled with our independent and self-determined status among nations of the world, be reflected by a citizen directly chosen by the people of Australia in election to represent and speak for and of the Australian nation and the Australian nation alone, and(b) This state of affairs be obtained by the House through legislation and referendum seeking consent of the people of Australia for the following innovations:1. That the Queen's constitutional powers be annulled and Her Majesty's ceremonial rights, roles, responsibilities, duties and requirements as Australia's formal head of state and those ceremonial representatives and ordinary governmental duties currently conducted by the Governor General, be conducted by an Australian citizen chosen by the people of Australia in election and bearing the title Speaker.2. That `Deputy Speaker' be the title carried by the House of Representatives parliamentary umpire, that position being filled from among the ranks of serving federal Members of Parliament selected by the House of Representatives in election.3. That any executive government or Reserve Powers of the Governor General be conducted by an individual appointed by Speaker acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, the House having subjected those powers and responsibilities to appraisal by a non-partisan Constitutional Convention whose recommendations the House should place before the people in referendum if the Convention outcomes so require.4. That a dais or Peoples Bench be constructed in the main chamber of the Commonwealth House of Representatives on which 12 Australian citizens per calendar year, described here as Lords and selected by Speaker alone, not being members of state or Commonwealth parliaments, shall provide an answer under parliamentary privilege to a question composed and put by Speaker alone by right enshrined in constitutional law, and conduct such responsibilities as their call to the Peoples Bench entails for a period not less than two calendar years.5. That Lords, on the joint authority of Speaker and the Prime Minister, shall, when required, carry the seal of state and officially represent the Speaker and the people of Australia acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.6. That these 24 Lords, plus one person selected by the Prime Minister and one person by the Leader of the Opposition, shall form a committee to regard such matters as the PM and/or Speaker lawfully refer to them leading Speaker to act in regards to the referred matter on the advice of this committee when its 26 members agree on the referred matter unanimously.7. That Speaker be empowered to arm and engage Royal Commissions as he or she sees fit by right enshrined in constitutional law without recourse to the Prime Minister or referral to the Lords as described in item 6.1Mrs Irwin83ZMrs Irwin (from one citizen).5601362FK6Mrs De-Anne KellyTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our strongest opposition to embryo stem cell research.We ask you to oppose all stem cell research which involves the destruction of human embryos.There is ample evidence of the greater effectiveness of stem cells from ethically acceptable sources, eg. adult and placental tissues et cetera.Therefore your petitioners humbly pray that the House oppose embryo stem cell research which involves the destruction of human embryos.362Mrs De-Anne KellyFK6Mrs De-Anne Kelly (from 362 citizens).5602758FK6Mrs De-Anne KellyTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of residents of the state of Queensland draws to the attention of the House:the current state of the sugar industry is caused by the corrupt nature of the world sugar price, and adverse weather and disease impacts on the crop. This situation, outside the control of the industry, has resulted in four straight years of minimal farm income and a direct loss to the Mackay region economy of more than $200 million since 1998.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:work with the sugar industry to address issues of best practice, modernisation, training, employment and cost efficiency, in a whole of government, whole of community fashion.In making this call we wish to create a clear constructive focus on returning the industry to a profitable state. We see that the keys to implementing action towards this goal are innovative solutions to training and employment, programmed acceleration of best practice adoption, a focus on reducing cost of production to meet the new paradigm in world sugar price and research programs designed to explore product variety and value added uses for the crop.We look for a clear statement from Federal and State Governments acknowledging that the sugar industry is an extremely important contributor to the economic health of regional Queensland and is economically and environmentally sustainable in the long term.758Mrs De-Anne KellyFK6Mrs De-Anne Kelly (from 758 citizens).56022415FK6Mrs De-Anne KellyTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House their disapproval to the proposal Green Zones (meaning closures to Recreational and Commercial Fishing).Your petitioners therefore pray that the House withdraw an action towards Green Zones and further investigate alternative means of conservation towards the Great Barrier Reef.This particular petition concerns residents situated between Cape Cleveland and Cape Upstart, North Queensland.2415Mrs De-Anne KellyFK6Mrs De-Anne Kelly (from 2,415 citizens).5602643RH4Mr KerrTo the House of Representatives:We, the undersigned, recognise Australia's rich and diverse historic, natural and indigenous heritage and the imperative to conserve and protect this heritage.We further note that the Howard Government has introduced legislation into Parliament to dramatically cut back the powers and independence of the Australian Heritage Commission and to abolish the Register of the National Estate, which has been developed over the past 25 years and consists of some 13,000 places.In its consideration of the Government's proposed heritage legislation, we therefore call on Parliament to support legislation to:· maintain the independence and listing role of the Australian Heritage Commission· maintain and develop the Register of the National Estate· increase Commonwealth protection of heritage places of national importance.Furthermore, we call on the Australian House of Representatives to continue to recognise the heritage values and significance of sites, which have been recognised by the Australian Heritage Commission and is currently listed on the Register of the National Estate.643Mr KerrRH4Mr Kerr (from 643 citizens).5602240200AMQMr KingTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that they believe that suicide bombing/homicide bombing is a crime against humanity.Calling on the humanitarian ideals of the people of Australia as represented by the parliament, your petitioners therefore ask the House to act immediately to propose a motion at the United Nations to declare clearly and unequivocally that the practice of suicide bombing is a crime against humanity. As a sub-clause that `This crime and its promoters, organisers and supporters are guilty of a crime which has been committed against the perpetrator (who has been indoctrinated) as well as the victims of the crime.' Further, that there is no moral, religious, political or ethical justification for this crime, and that the criminals should be prosecuted and punished as per international conventions. 2402Mr King00AMQMr King (from 2,402 citizens).560351WN6Mr Ian MacfarlaneTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of residents of the state of Queensland draws to the attention of the House the public need for an Australia Post Office to be located within High Street Plaza Shopping Centre, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350.Your petitioners therefore request the House to recognise the inadequate postal services within the suburbs of Rangeville and Middle Ridge and its surrounds and address this matter with the issuing of a licence to operate an Australia Post, post office at High Street Plaza Shopping Centre, the central focal point of our rapidly expanding region.51Mr Ian MacfarlaneWN6Mr Ian Macfarlane (from 51 citizens).5603117PG6Ms MacklinTo the Honourable the Prime Minister and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of concerned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Prime Minister and the House that Australian society should welcome all persons experiencing persecution and that their human dignity should be respected at all times. It is our belief that we all belong to one human family and as such we have obligations to promote the rights and development of all people across the world, irrespective of national boundaries.Your petitioners therefore ask the Prime Minister and the House to:1. Ensure that Australia treats refugees and asylum seekers with dignity and safeguards their fundamental human rights;2. Review the manner and time span in which Australia detains people in special facilities;3. Ensure that information provided by government on asylum seekers and refugees is constructive and does not undermine public sympathy; and4. Develop and implement an independent assessment of refugee status.117Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin (from 117 citizens).560311974V5Mrs MoylanTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain electors of the Division of Pearce draws to the attention of the House, the shortage of doctors in the suburbs of Quinns Rocks, Merriwa, Clarkson, Ridgewood, Butler and Mindarie, in the state of Western Australia.· The patient to doctor ratio for the abovementioned area, based on 2001 figures, is 2,234 patients to one doctor.· According to figures released by the City of Wanneroo, the total population in the above areas was 25,490 in the year 2001, and the projected population will reach 37,611 by the year 2006.· Based on these projections the patient to doctor ratio will reach 3,300 patients to one doctor by the year 2006, unless more doctors are recruited.· The current patient to doctor ratio is much worse in the abovementioned suburbs, than in many rural areas, which are currently recognised by both the state and federal governments as `Areas of Unmet Medical Need'.Your petitioners therefore request the House to support moves to classify the abovementioned areas as `An Area of Unmet Medical Need'.1197Mrs Moylan4V5Mrs Moylan (from 1,197 citizens).56031A8WMr PearceTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain former members of the Royal Australian Navy, and citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House that service performed by former members of the Royal Australian Navy serving aboard HMA Ships Sydney and her escorting destroyer(s) and frigate(s) during Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War (1965-1972), is now the subject of investigations by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. These investigations have inferred that abnormally high mortality rates have been recorded amongst members of the RAN who served in the Logistic Support role and in those that served as Clearance Divers. It has been inferred by the DVA that the high mortality rates may be attributed to toxins, dioxins and herbicide residue in the waters of the South Vietnamese port of Vung Tau. This water would have been used as `potable' water by these ships.Your petitioners therefore request the House to refer this matter to the Minister concerned as a matter of extreme urgency. That the House also suggest to the Minister that this matter be the subject of full and thorough investigations which should include bona-fide members of the naval veteran community, representing those that this most concerns.1Mr PearceA8WMr Pearce (from one citizen).56041A8WMr PearceTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain former members of the Royal Australian Navy, and citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House that service performed by former members of the Royal Australian Navy serving aboard HMAS Sydney during Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War 1965-1972, was the subject of two (2) investigations by the then Naval Judge Advocate, the Hon. Mr Justice Trevor Rapke QC. These reports, in part, refer to the living conditions that Mr Justice Rapke found aboard HMAS Sydney whilst undertaking his investigations into another related matter.Whilst the related matter of alleged bastardisation of junior sailors is on the public record and may be found in the Parliamentary Hansard of 1970. The reports and the many photographs of living and working conditions aboard HMAS Sydney have never been given the same amount of public exposure.Your petitioners therefore request the House to refer this matter to the Minister concerned as a matter of extreme importance. As information from an independent source, such as that found and recorded by Mr Justice Rapke, regarding the living and working conditions aboard HMAS Sydney, whilst this vessel was on Operational Service, are very relevant to those making claims for Repatriation benefits and other related matters.1Mr PearceA8WMr Pearce (from one citizen).56041A8WMr PearceTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain former members of the Royal Australian Navy, and citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House that the immediate past Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Shackleton AO RAN (Rtd) has inferred in a recent public document (PACC/283/02) of 13 June 2002, that `a suitable basis does not exist for an official search for the wreck of HMAS Sydney 2.' Therefore the locale of both the ship and the 645 men who sailed in her remains a mystery. As a consequence, many Australian families and related individuals have had their hopes dashed and final closure denied them.Your petitioners therefore request the House to refer this matter to the Minister(s) concerned as a matter of public importance. And that the Minister(s) direct the incumbent Chief of Navy to re-assess his predecessor's assessment with the view of conducting a concerted search in the areas nominated by the reports quoted, or alternatively, contract the search out to a reputable firm equipped to undertake such a venture. Side-scan Sonar has been suggested as the correct apparatus for such a venture. 1Mr PearceA8WMr Pearce (from one citizen).56041A8WMr PearceTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain former members of the Royal Australian Navy, and citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House that the civilian surgical teams that served in Vietnam during Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War 1965-1972 are in receipt of medals for their service and they appear in the Department of Veterans' Affairs Nominal Roll of Vietnam Veterans'. However, at present, they are denied access to the Department of Veterans' Affairs Repatriation System.Your petitioners therefore request the House to refer this matter to the Minister(s) concerned as a matter of grave concern. If the musicians and singers that entertained the troops and the flight attendants that flew with QANTAS are eligible, logic dictates that those that saved lives in less than ideal conditions should be afforded full and unqualified access to the same benefits as all Australians that served.1Mr PearceA8WMr Pearce (from one citizen).56041A8WMr PearceTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain former members of the Royal Australian Navy, and citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House that service performed by former members of the Royal Australian Navy serving aboard HMA Ships Vampire and Quickmatch, January 1962, whilst transiting the Long Tau shipping channel to and from the then South Vietnamese capital of Saigon, and for the period of time alongside, has not been adequately recognised by government.Your petitioners therefore request the House to refer the true circumstances of the visit to the Minister(s) concerned, with a recommendation that this service be recognised for the purposes of the award of the Australian Active Service Medal 1945-1975, and the Returned from Active Service Badge. And, that this service be considered as qualifying service for the purposes of granting access to the Repatriation system.1Mr PearceA8WMr Pearce (from one citizen).5605191PK6Mr RandallTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia in Parliament assembled.We, the undersigned submit this petition to you for consideration in the debate on the `Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002.' While we are pleased with how the bill makes cloning and other related activities illegal, we are disturbed by the legalisation of the killing of embryos.Each of the honourable members of this Parliament receives their authority from God to rule this land in a way pleasing to Him and to punish those who practise evil (as we read in Romans 13:1-4). God created man in His image (Genesis 1:26) and requires all those who destroy human life unnecessarily to be punished. Psalm 139:13-16, quoted below, clearly talks about how human life begins at conception and how God is involved from conception.We understand that a large number of embryos have already been created and appear to have no future. However, rather than this being a reason to legalise the destruction of life, it should shift the focus to the cause of the problem—the unethical practice of creating surplus embryos. Allowing embryonic stem cell research only encourages this wrong practice and will make it more difficult to reverse it.As rulers of this land on God's behalf, we encourage you to defend all of life from conception. We ask you to support adult, but not embryonic stem cell research. We request you to oppose this and any other legislation that legalises the killing of embryos. Doing this you may expect God's blessing. Failing this you invite God's anger.We wish you the necessary wisdom and strength for your important and responsible task.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.191Mr RandallPK6Mr Randall (from 191 citizens).56054766J4Mr SciaccaTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the impact of sea cage fish farms in Moreton Bay.· Sea cage fish farms will significantly increase levels of nutrients into the bay derived from excess feed, faeces, dead fish, operational pollution and cage cleaning;· Increase the risk of algal blooms;· Contribute to lowering dissolved oxygen in the water which leads to the death of marine life;· Place at risk the wild populations of fish, bird and flora species through introduced diseases, genetically modified breeding stock and pollution plumes;· Require the use of tetracycline and formalin as medication in the feed and anti-fouling agents to clean cages, the long-term environmental effects of which are not known;· Create a blight on the visual amenity of Moreton Bay significantly affecting the tourist potential of Moreton Bay;· Compromise the millions of dollars that have been invested to date to remove nitrogen from Moreton Bay to protect the fragile ecosystem.Your petitioners therefore request the House to immediately enact legislation that will prevent the establishment of sea cage fish farms in Moreton Bay.476Mr Sciacca6J4Mr Sciacca (from 476 citizens).5605855YU5Mr TannerTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of residents of citizens of the North West of Queensland draws to the attention of the House the plight of the citizens of this region who have, since November 2001, suffered from a total absence of a regional television news service.Your petitioners request the House to grant the Australian Broadcasting Authority sufficient authority to enact and enforce licence provisions for broadcasters to provide a relevant news service to their broadcasting area.The people of the North West also call on the government, as it reviews media ownership laws, to enact regulations ensuring equal news services for all, especially those in far flung areas.855Mr TannerYU5Mr Tanner (from 855 citizens).5606321984CMr Cameron ThompsonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the state of Queensland draws to the attention of the House that the area of Brassall contains a large community shopping centre that is without any form of postal services. The shopping precinct is used by citizens of all ages and the area contains a large elderly population due to close proximity of two retirement villages.The area also contains a number of schools that consist entirely of day students and the shopping precinct is used frequently before and after school. All of the citizens require the services of Australia Post for dispatch and receipt of mail, access to the security of registered mail and for payment of taxes, rates and other accounts as facilitated by the services of Australia Post.A great portion of the citizens require access to Australia Post for use of their Commonwealth Bank and National Australia Bank agencies.Your petitioners therefore request the House to instruct Australia Post to provide these services from a convenient location within Brassall Shopping Centre for the benefit of all the citizens who require these services.3219Mr Cameron Thompson84CMr Cameron Thompson (from 3,219 citizens).56061772GT4Mr TrussTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the state of Queensland draws to the attention of the House their objection to the planned relocation of the Medicare Office from 385 Kent Street, Maryborough, Queensland to Station Square Shopping Centre, 142 Lennox Street, Maryborough, Queensland, as it will inconvenience the public in general and elderly people in particular and will inhibit the council and community's efforts to invigorate the CBD.Your petitioners therefore request the House to intervene to ensure that the Medicare Office remains in the centre of the traditional CBD, and thus close to medical providers.1772Mr TrussGT4Mr Truss (from 1,772 citizens).5606179384FDr WasherTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that we, the undersigned, oppose the mobile phone facility adjacent to the Mullaloo Kindergarten and within 150 metres of the Mullaloo Heights Primary School and adjacent to the Mullaloo Plaza Shopping Centre.We believe the installation1. Places at risk the future health of children who attend the kindergarten and primary school.2. Has been installed without full and open public disclosure and consultation3. Continued even though Hutchinson was advised by the City of Joondalup that the proposal was not supported in accordance with a Council moratorium dated 12/9/2000.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House requests the Minister for Communications to urgently develop an installation policy and guidelines in relation to telecommunications facilities, in particular those situated or proposed in residential areas.We also request the House to urgently withdraw the Hutchinson telecommunications licence until the facility at Mullaloo is decommissioned and removed.Your petitioners, therefore respectfully request that the House of Representatives will give this matter earnest consideration.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.1793Dr Washer84FDr Washer (from 1,793 citizens).Petitions received.Private Members' Business5606560615:43:005606Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I move:That this House:(1) recognises the physical, emotional and psychological damage caused by child sexual abuse;(2) recognises that in every state in Australia adults who have sexual relations with teenagers under the age of 16 are committing a criminal offence, and there are no excuses for this behaviour;(3) commits itself to providing a safe environment for every child in Australia;(4) commits itself to playing a role in ending sexual abuse of children overseas; and(5) commits itself to acknowledging and seeking to mend the harm done to victims of child sexual abuse.When I first sought to have this issue debated in private members' business, we were in the midst of a crisis of confidence in our Governor-General. He had clearly shown signs that he had no understanding of the nature of child sexual abuse in the comments he made about a priest's relationship with an under-age girl. The Prime Minister's support of the Governor-General brought into question his own understanding of child sexual abuse. The support for the Governor-General was, of course, in contrast to the quick condemnation of a High Court judge against whom Senator Heffernan made allegations which were later found to be false. It seemed at the time that the Prime Minister had fallen into the trap that many Australians also fall into, where they think it is more likely that child sexual abuse is being committed by homosexual men and creepy-looking strangers—the truth, of course, is much more frightening.In November 1995, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority inquired into organised criminal paedophile activity. The committee stated:There has been a widespread reluctance in Australia to accept the reality that most child abuse is committed by a close relative or person well known to the victim. The tendency has been either to deny that much abuse occurs or to blame strangers and attach disproportionate importance and credence to claims, often sensationalised by the media, about shadowy paedophile organisations and networks.Now we have another serious accusation. The accused is a prominent person, who is, of course, entitled to a presumption of innocence, but the Prime Minister's rush to defend Archbishop Pell has been inappropriate in the extreme. A proper investigation, preferably conducted by the police, but, if not, by a trusted person independent from the church hierarchy, is necessary and will occur. To say that there is no merit in the case because of the delay in reporting, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of child sexual abuse and may discourage victims from coming forward in the future. The message is that, if a perpetrator is a respected member of the community, you will never be believed.Most victims never report abuse. J.M. Fleming reported, in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1997, that only 10 per cent of victims reported the abuse to the police, a doctor or other agency such as a sexual assault service. The fact that there are usually no witnesses is one big reason for not reporting; victims feel they will not be believed. Of course, this is typical of the nature of this crime: it is most likely to occur in secret, usually in the home of the offender. Long delays before reporting are also symptomatic of child sexual assault. Children do not feel confident that what happened to them was wrong and not their fault until they reach adulthood. Abusers often threaten or bribe children to prevent disclosure. The bias in our legal system has always been towards protecting the accused, and quite properly so, but this can be done without assuming the evidence of victims is fabricated. Victims may also feel that, even if they took legal action, the result would likely not be a conviction. Research by Cossins from 1991 to 1996 shows that conviction rates for cases involving child sexual assault are much lower than conviction rates for all other crimes combined—and that included crimes that are difficult to prove, such as allegations of assault by police.Before the age of consent was raised from 12 to 16 years in Australia in the early 19th century, it was normal sexual practice for some Australian men to have sex with child prostitutes as young as eight or nine. Children who were abused were often accused of fabricating stories or of just being child prostitutes who were not paid for their services. This culture of assuming that children lie easily in these cases still has credence with many people. The truth is that children are more likely to cover up abuse than to invent it. Often this is because perpetrators, if not family members, spend a lot of time building a relationship with a child and his or her family before abuse occurs. Children are groomed for abuse. Perpetrators are usually known to the victim; in fact, they are usually family members. In 93 per cent of cases in New South Wales, family members, friends or neighbours were perpetrators. What is really shocking is that, in 57 per cent of cases, the perpetrator is a natural parent of the child. Three times as many girls as boys are abused. These figures come from Child Protection Australia 1999-2000, which was produced by the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare.We need to ensure that every Australian child is safe in his or her home. We need to teach protective behaviours to children as part of a whole program of self-esteem and confidence building that makes children aware that behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable need not be tolerated. `Stranger danger' warnings are just part of teaching children how to protect themselves. We need to strengthen families before abuse starts—not cut, as this government has, $16½ million from the stronger families program. We need to make court procedures bearable for children. I recognise and applaud recent measures to allow children to give evidence on closed-circuit TV, but we also need to change judicial practice so that warnings against convicting on the basis of uncorroborated evidence do not prejudice juries against convictions. These warnings are no longer mandatory but they are common practice in courts, and, where they are given, juries are less likely to convict.We need to ensure that mandatory reporting is followed up properly and that government agencies are resourced to do their jobs and to do them effectively. We need to continue community education campaigns that describe how wrong child sexual abuse is and what to do if you are a victim or if you suspect a child of being a victim. These campaigns must be culturally appropriate. We need to jail perpetrators, and we need to jail them for a long time—not as a punishment and not as a warning, but to keep them away from other children. We know that the rates of recidivism for sexual offenders, particularly child sex offenders, are high. The statistics vary about how high they might be, but the offenders need to be kept away from other potential victims. We can have a look at perpetrator programs and whether they are effective, but certainly not at the expense of counselling and other support offered to victims of child sexual abuse. Any programs need to be premised on the fact that child sexual abuse is a crime. While child sexual abuse happens in all communities and in all socioeconomic groups, we also need to be honest and acknowledge that some communities face worse problems than others and that those communities need extra help to find their own solutions for the long term but, meanwhile, their children must be protected from abuse that might occur today or tomorrow. The recent Gordon inquiry in Western Australia—triggered by the coronial inquest into the death of 15-year-old Susan Taylor—which was followed by allegations of endemic abuse of children in one particular Aboriginal community in Perth, went to some of the issues involved. Susan Taylor, at 15 years of age, took her own life in 1999, just weeks after disclosing to her former case manager that she had endured a life of sexual abuse. The Gordon inquiry found significant failures of government departments to coordinate, plan and deliver services. It found terrible stories of sexual abuse and heavy solvent use amongst Aboriginal teenagers, that Aboriginal children are seven times more likely than non-Aboriginal children to be abused, and that 80 per cent of Aboriginal girls in the juvenile justice system reported having been sexually abused. The inquiry made 197 recommendations—which, obviously, I cannot cover today—including a massive overhaul of health and welfare services that deal with child sexual abuse, mandatory reporting of children under the age of 13 with sexually transmitted diseases, and, in specific reference to the community in question, that there be formal negotiations between the community leaders to ensure welfare workers have access to these children.In response to the Fitzgerald report on communities in Cape York, which found that Indigenous children were up to four times as likely to suffer from abuse than non-Aboriginal children, Boni Robertson, who had completed an early, very important work on extensive violence and abuse in Aboriginal communities, said:We've been researched and inquiried out. We need to get beyond the inquiry stage now and do something about it.She was further quoted last week after the rape of a two-year-old girl in Northern Queensland. Ms Robertson said:Our people need to be a lot more honest about the prevalence of sexual abuse. Until we're honest about this and expose offenders, our children will always be vulnerable to sexual abuse. We need, as a community, to implement some of the recommendations that have come out of these reports and not talk. We need to resource Aboriginal women to stop the abuse in their communities, but we also have to accept that jail must be an end result for people who are involved in the sexual abuse of children. I did want to make some comments about Australia's role in protecting children overseas from child sexual abuse, but I notice I have run out of time. I hope I will have an opportunity to do that at another stage.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?00AMRKing, Catherine, MPMs King—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:53:005609Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I am happy to speak in support of the motion by the member for Sydney on child sexual abuse and welcome her initiative in bringing this matter to the House. I believe it is one of the most significant issues that confronts today's society. It has been a long-running issue and, in the current environment where more and more examples of this come to light, it is appropriate that we consider ways in which we can address the problem. There is increasing public focus on this issue and a lot of media interest in it. Most importantly, we should address some of the causation behind it and some of the ways in which we can minimise the damage. The existence of sexual abuse of children is a serious indictment of our society. It is also one of the most appalling crimes that any of us can imagine. We need serious measures to address this issue.There is no doubt about the long-term damage caused by sexual abuse—innocence is lost, trust is compromised and families are destroyed. The victims of child sexual abuse usually deal with emotional upheaval for the majority of their lives. Many suffer emotional breakdown to the point where they become depressed, suffer low self-esteem, have an inability to sustain a loving relationship with family members and others. Some turn to alcohol or drug abuse, some turn to prostitution. There is a statistic that shows that 80 per cent of prostitutes have suffered some sort of sexual abuse as a child.There are a number of significant measures needed to address this issue. Mandatory reporting has been in existence for a number of years and has done much to assist the situation and needs to be upheld. Currently, those who work in this area comment on the limited resources available from various departments of community services around Australia. We need to ensure that we have appropriate resources in order to attack the problem, to follow up leads and to investigate where complaints have been made. I noticed last night on the evening news that the Victorian minister for social welfare was saying that he would like to see introduced a national register of paedophiles. That is something which we should seriously look at, not so much as to invade people's privacy but, because of the recidivism rate of these people, it is important that we know where they are to prevent further occurrences of child abuse occurring.I was involved in a Kairos program a couple of months ago in Long Bay jail, which lasted 3½ days. A significant number of people were there because of paedophilia. Working in this environment was a challenge but one of the most disturbing things, in listening to their stories, was the incidence of people who had themselves been abused as children—almost universal. Because of that, it is important to break the pattern. There is a number of programs that exist for treatment of those who have this serious addiction. The prison has instituted one which goes on for 12 months with psychologists. The experience of Kairos programs in US prisons shows that the recidivism rate drops dramatically after having been through these programs. They are not a panacea but they do seem to work because people can find a recurring sense of self-esteem and understanding of the importance of working through it. I commend this program.Kairos has been instituted in the New South Wales prison system and also in Victoria but is yet to go nationwide. I understand one is about to commence in South Australia. Kairos programs have a wide application. At the program I was involved in, a significant number of the people had been convicted of paedophile offences. It was interesting to see the extent to which their lives had been shattered. For those who had been married, their marriages had collapsed, they had no contact with their children, no contact with their parents, they had lost their businesses, their jobs and their self-esteem. For most of them, it all began when they were six, seven, eight or nine, when as children they were abused. Breaking that pattern is a real challenge for us all.There is also the question the member for Sydney was planning to speak about—protecting children outside Australia. It is a fact that all Australians should be deeply disturbed by the fact that there are literally hundreds of Australians travelling around South-East Asia on so-called `child sex tours'. The extent to which this practice is supported by desperately poor families looking to make money in countries like Cambodia and Thailand was graphically illustrated by an article in a recent weekend edition of the Sydney Morning Herald. Despite this scourge, Australia has led international efforts to combat child sex tourism, including by the enactment in 1994 of child sex tourism provisions in the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914. Ten Australians have been successfully prosecuted under this act.The government has taken action in this area by making it a criminal offence under Australian law to have sex with children, whether the act occurs in Australia or overseas. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is working with the Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Federal Police to identify how we can use the DFAT network better to help combat child sex tourism. Australia funds programs to strengthen institutional and legal capacity in the region to fight child sex, including funding support of $350,000 for Child Wise ECPAT—a leading international non-government organisation combating child sex tourism—for its regional child abuse prevention program. This is a particularly challenging issue. It is an issue that affects, as the member for Sydney has said, all levels of the community and it reaches into all strata. We are confronted by this issue amongst not only some Catholic priests—as I discovered in Long Bay—but also people you know. I was actually confronted by somebody I went to school with. It is not something that is unique—that these are different people; that you have never met them. It is something that permeates right through our community. Unless we address the issue of child sexual abuse and take the significant steps that have been outlined by the member for Sydney and by officials and experts in this area, we will see this continuing pattern recurring in the future of young lives being ruined, their whole self-confidence being shattered, their trust in adults being totally torn apart, their belief in relationships and what they can mean being shattered, and their ability to maintain long-term relationships being put to straining point. Of course, we see this pattern in people who take the ultimate action—that is, suicide. Child sexual abuse leads to a whole permeation of aberrant behaviour. Some people are affected by drug abuse, others turn to prostitution and some to crime. My wife has been involved in the Mulawa program in Sydney. At the closing service for Mulawa, people shared stories from their own backgrounds. These people were not paedophiles; they were young women who had entered a life of crime. They told of how they were abused—again, at young ages. The effect on our society is dramatic and significant and it tears people apart. We certainly need to do something about it. I support the motion moved by the member for Sydney today.16:03:005611King, Catherine, MPMs KING00AMRBallaratALP00—I rise to give my strongest possible support to the motion on child sexual abuse before us today. The damage done to individuals, families and communities through the perpetration of child sexual abuse is irreparable. Child sexual abuse has been brought to the front of our thinking of late with high profile cases, but child sexual abuse has been occurring in our community for a long time. My first job after graduating as a social worker was heading up a unit that worked with young people who were at risk and coming into contact with the juvenile justice system. They were kids on probation and parole from youth training centres. I am not exaggerating when I say that at least 95 per cent of the cases that I worked with over a period of five years involved sexual abuse. Their abusers came from all walks of life, from all socioeconomic groups. In the main, they were family members, friends of the family, neighbours and people placed in positions of care over them. Much of the abuse had occurred over a long period of time.When you talk to adult survivors of child abuse, they tell you of the fear, shame and sense of powerlessness that the abuse has caused. They tell you that their lives have never been the same. They tell you of the sense of loss and grief they feel for what their lives would have been if the abuse had not occurred. These adults are not just anonymous statistics; they are everywhere in our community. They often tried to report the abuse before, but were not believed. Many of them work with us, are members of our families, play sport with us or live next door. Some of them could even be members of this House. Many of them are still silent. What message do you think the Prime Minister's statement regarding the allegations against Dr Pell sent to those who might want to come forward and report child sexual abuse? It sent a message that if you speak out you will not be believed.It seems to me that, given the daily revelations of child sexual abuse and the damage that it has caused countless lives, we have to have a national response to the issue. The establishment of a national child and youth commissioner is long overdue. Children and young people must have an advocate at the highest level. Labor has outlined the roles a national youth commissioner should play, and these include developing mechanisms to assist the coordination of best practice service models for children and youth programs, including protocols for dealing with child abuse complaints. The report on child protection 2000-01 clearly shows that we are failing our children in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The government's focus on standardising mandatory reporting is not enough—it is after the event and is not going to stop child abuse. We have an obligation to focus on preventing child abuse and neglect happening in the first place. We need to understand and address the complex causal factors and scrutinise the adequacy of current family support programs, not cut them. We need to have in place a system that insists on stringent checks of people who have contact with children and are placed in positions of authority over them. We need better education, training and support for people who are at the point of receiving an allegation. We need to stop seeing family support programs, such as the provision of child care, income support and family relationship counselling, as somehow not the main game for the federal government. We also need to do more to stop the sexual abuse of children overseas, particularly when the perpetrators are our own citizens. We desperately need a national commissioner for children and youth to put the issue of the protection of children into the national spotlight.I had the opportunity to talk to Moira Rayner, Victoria's previous sex discrimination commissioner, before she took up the post of children's commissioner in the United Kingdom. I asked her why she decided to take the job, and she said something along the lines of, `I knew the government was serious about their commitment to children when I turned up for my interview and there was not an adult in sight. The kids ran the interview process, and they made the decision. How could I refuse the job when children had selected me?' I think that governments that put that much power in the hands of children make a pretty powerful statement. If we were to send such a statement, and if the government were to endorse Labor's initiative to have a national children's commissioner, it would go a long way towards preventing child sexual abuse and giving children a voice in this parliament and in the community. 16:07:005612Ciobo, Steven, MPMr CIOBO00AN0MoncrieffLP10—It is good to be associated with the remarks and the general spirit that flow in this House towards the victims of child sexual abuse. I congratulate the member for Sydney on her initiative in bringing together this motion on child sexual abuse and for putting on the record this chamber's position. Robert Browning, the English poet, wrote in one of his poems:... go practise if you please with men and women: leave a child alone for Christ's particular love's sake!I thought that was quite apt for our discussion here today. Child sexual abuse is an absolute blight not only on Australian society but on civilised societies worldwide. Throughout the world, we are experiencing so many rapid advances in medicine, education and technology, yet we allow so many of the vulnerable to be violated. So many of our children, who wear the warm shroud of innocence on their shoulders, have that torn away from them, more often than not by someone whom they are close to, in whom they have established a trust and upon whom they would have thought they could rely.I have always considered child sexual abuse to be an abhorrent crime, and the lead-up to this debate—which is not a debate in the true sense of the word—encouraged me to research some of the statistics on child sexual abuse so I was better informed and more able to make comment in this chamber. I was most certainly shocked by the ugly scar that the statistics represent for Australian society and for the world. What is child sexual abuse? What is child abuse? These are important questions. I put them on the record so that we know some of the benchmarks when we assess the statistics as well as what constitutes abuse. In most instances, across various jurisdictions, abuse is described as any action or a lack thereof that has a detrimental effect of a significant nature on a child's physical, psychological or emotional health and development. Child sexual abuse is an extension of this definition and incorporates abuse of a sexual nature, such as fondling, exhibitionism, intercourse, incest and child pornography.The statistics in the report into organised criminal paedophile activity of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority were of great concern to me. The report said:Of the 2,873 substantiated cases of child sexual abuse reported—in the year prior to this committee's report—the parent (natural, adoptive, step, de facto or foster) was believed responsible in 34.6 per cent of the cases and a guardian in two cases. A sibling or other relative was believed responsible in a further 22.8 per cent of the cases, and a friend or neighbour in 27.6 per cent of cases. It was only in 14.9 per cent of cases that the person was neither a relative, guardian, friend or neighbour. Although I am not one to quote Hillary Clinton often, she said, `There is no such thing as other people's children.' Members of society have a responsibility to nurture and protect the young. We no longer can shy away from our responsibilities. We should report those whom we believe may be abusing children and indeed those whom we believe may be sexually abusing children. According to the reports, in virtually all instances it is someone who is known to the child who is most likely to violate that child's innocence. I am pleased to report that the government, over the past six years, has substantially increased expenditure in tackling this problem. In 1996 we expended approximately $5.5 billion on the justice program, which incorporates measures to stop this type of activity. This has increased now under the federal government by 8.4 per cent to the most recent year. None of these efforts will be fruitful, however, if there is not goodwill in the community to prevent this abhorrent abuse. I urge all members to come together in the spirit of this motion and to make sure that we are vigilant always.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.561316:13:005613Vamvakinou, Maria, MPMs VAMVAKINOU00AMTCalwellALP00—I move:That this House:(1) notes the recommendation of the February 1995 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs to amend the Medicare rebate schedule to include the provision of mammary prostheses;(2) recognises that estimates of women undergoing breast cancer surgery in Australia approach 1,000 per month with more than one-third requiring a mastectomy;(3) recognises the ongoing cost (financial, physical and emotional) of wearing required prostheses and shell/breast forms and acknowledges the strain on muscles and posture following the loss of a breast or a significant part of the breast;(4) recognises the ongoing cost of prostheses and acknowledges that there is no Commonwealth Government scheme to lessen the financial burden faced by women following breast surgery for those in need of prosthetics;(5) notes The Canberra Times article “Dead women's breast prostheses resold” appearing on 3 June 2002 detailing the reuse of mammary prostheses amongst breast cancer patients facing financial hardship;(6) calls on the Government to provide mammary prostheses through the Medicare rebate schedule; and(7) condemns the Government over budget measures where the sickest and poorest Australians and families will be hit with an increase of almost 30% in the cost of their essential medicines.I would also like to note the passing of the great Australian playwright and poet, Dorothy Hewitt, who died of breast cancer on the weekend. Breast cancer affects one in 10 Australian women. Figures for Canberra show that one in eight are affected, which means about 1,000 women per month are affected. Of those women, 360 will require a radical mastectomy and, as a result, they will need to be fitted with a breast prosthesis. Some women may require two prostheses as they face metastasis of the cancer to the other breast. There are a number of different breast prostheses that are available to women. They range from smaller padded forms, which cost about $60, to full breast prostheses, which cost about $400. It is probably appropriate to show to the parliament the nature of the breast prosthesis considered most appropriate for women who suffer from breast cancer to wear. The purpose of my motion is to bring to the attention of the parliament the failure of not only the current government but also the previous government to provide affordable and accessible prostheses for Australian women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer.Breast cancer changes the lives of women forever. It also has a profound impact on the lives of their families, in particular their children. Not only do they face difficult treatment but also those who are lucky to survive have to live with the possible fear of recurrence. For those who have had mastectomies, the angst of dealing with suitable and adequate prostheses becomes a lifelong concern. Presently, breast prostheses are not on the Medicare rebate schedule, causing many Australian women to make do with whatever they can afford, which is not always the best option. In other instances, women who cannot afford the better but more expensive breast prostheses, like the one I have shown to the parliament, may have to opt for a second-hand one—that is, one that was fitted for another woman who has now died and whose prostheses is passed on. Recent reports in the Canberra Times reveal this appalling trend by hospitals to recycle dead women's prostheses to those who cannot afford the cost of a new, specially fitted one. Can you imagine the psychological impact on women who are forced into this predicament? It is difficult enough to cope with the loss of a breast and with all the social, physical and psychological effects that that may have, let alone having to use the prosthesis of a woman who has died. Many women may initially manage to procure suitable prostheses, but the very delicate constitution of the prosthesis means that it is susceptible to being damaged. A replacement will cost another $400—money that not all women have on the spot or at call. Some therefore resort to extending the use of the prosthesis for as long as possible by using bandaids or even masking tape to repair and contain damage. If a woman cannot afford a replacement, it is not uncommon to go without. Many women opt for alternative methods such as bags filled with stockings or sponges or even stuffing their bras with bird seed.Breast prostheses are not just a matter for aesthetic correction; they also assist in restoring the balance of the body so that minimal stress is placed on the shoulders, the neck and the back. More importantly, they restore a woman's sense of confidence, as they enable women to continue their public and social lives without embarrassment. This is very important because, despite the generally heightened awareness of breast cancer amongst our community, none of us—men or women—are conditioned to seeing one-breasted women moving around in public. We are used to wheelchairs, amputees and false limbs, but try getting into a bus or a tram or walking down the street with one breast—it just does not happen. The quality and availability of suitable and affordable breast prostheses are an ongoing concern for all Australian women and their families.At the onset of my speech, I was critical of both the government of the day and of the former Labor government for having failed to address the issue of Medicare rebatable prostheses. In 1995, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs recommended that the Medicare rebate schedule be amended to include mammary prostheses. The then Labor government, in its wisdom, rejected the recommendation on the basis that those women who received treatment in public hospitals had prostheses given to them free of charge and those who were treated as private patients under private health cover would have their prostheses covered. Unfortunately, that was not, and continues not to be, the case. Public hospitals are expected to provide free prostheses. However, growing evidence suggests that more often than not budget cuts and restrictions apply, so women either have to wait for anything up to 12 months for prostheses or they may have to make do with whatever is available—a dead woman's prosthesis perhaps. Unfortunately, breast prostheses have come to compete for funding with other prostheses and aids. As I said, most times the money just is not there. As for those who are private patients, I am told that not all health schemes provide the cover. Certainly not all women can afford premium health cover in order to avail themselves of the extras. The Canberra based organisation Caring for You—members of which are in the gallery today, and I welcome them—and the Melbourne based Breast Cancer Action Group, which are support and lobby groups for women with breast cancer, are conducting research into determining which health schemes offer this type of cover.The response of the current government, and in particular the minister for health, Senator Kay Patterson—whom I must say I hold in very high esteem—in telling the breast cancer action groups that she cannot place breast prostheses on the Medicare rebate schedule because she would be setting an unwanted precedent, with the prospect of other disabled people wanting their aids and prostheses on the schedule also, is greatly disappointing. It may be good and proper for a minister who has to watch her budget, but her reasons for rejecting the proposal are seriously flawed. Firstly, we need to recognise that the current situation with breast prostheses has reached a critical point. It needs to be addressed. Secondly, what we are talking about here is an outlay by government of only about $1.7 million annually. This is hardly a figure that will break the bank.Women make up 52 per cent of the Australian population. When one woman is struck by breast cancer, an entire family and community are affected. Very few people in our community will remain completely untouched by breast cancer, because it is the most common cause of cancer related deaths in women in Australia. We need to treat breast prostheses separately from other prostheses and aids. The case for treating them separately is compelling, not only for the reasons I have outlined above but from a mathematical point of view. The case for breast prostheses is a unique and special one and that case is strong. I mentioned earlier that 1,000 women per month are diagnosed with breast cancer. It is important to note that more and more younger women are being diagnosed with breast cancer and I understand that three per cent of the male population is also being diagnosed with breast cancer. I bet that statistic would be a surprise to anyone. It certainly was to me. Until such time as a complete cure is found for the disease, this will continue year in and year out, and about 360 women will have a mastectomy year in and year out. Compare that to other disabilities which result in the loss of limbs or in being wheelchair bound. No-one can say that these disabilities compare in number and frequency to women with breast cancer. Breast prostheses therefore should not have to compete with or be considered in the same category as other aids. In any case, why should women who are afflicted by this dreadful condition be at the mercy and whim of public hospital budgets that vary from place to place? Why should they have to be beholden to inadequate or unaffordable private health care schemes? Why should the responsibility for funding the provision of breast prostheses be a buck that is passed from state to Commonwealth as each scrambles to shift the blame or the responsibility onto the other?We are talking about a pitiful amount of funding: $1.7 million annually. Surely, as women, we are important enough to our families and to our communities to warrant fair and reasonable treatment from the federal government. After all, very importantly, we are also taxpayers. I am certain if you took a poll amongst Australian women and men you would find very few who did not support this recommendation. The action groups tell me that they will not give up the fight to ensure that breast prostheses are put on the Medicare rebate schedule. I am very glad that those women are out there defending the rights of women and providing valuable support. I am glad they will not give up on their efforts to persuade the health minister that her thinking on this matter is flawed and needs to be reviewed as a matter of urgency. We will certainly be there to assist them in their effort.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs Hoare—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:22:005615Ley, Sussan, MPMs LEY00AMNFarrerLP10—I thank my colleague the member for Calwell for raising this important topic—to provide women surviving breast cancer with mammary protheses—in the House. As a fellow new female member of this House, I am sure that we do have much in common; in particular, our concern for the welfare of women—and of course the welfare of children, which featured so well in the previous private member's motion—when they are at their most vulnerable, as indeed they are when facing the consequences of breast cancer. No member of this parliament should underestimate the significance or the impact of breast cancer in the community today. It is much more common than may be thought. The causes of breast cancer are largely unknown, although some risk factors have been identified, including having a genetic predisposition, being older, perhaps having had children later in life or perhaps having drunk excess alcohol. But most women with breast cancer have no known risk factors, so there is nothing that the one in 10, 11 or 12 of us, depending on age, who may contract breast cancer can really do to alleviate that possibility.Women with breast cancer may confront surgical treatment of one breast to prevent the spread of cancer, its growth and the likelihood of its returning to the breast area. There are two types of surgical treatment; both types are equally effective. They are breast conserving treatment and mastectomy. Breast conserving treatment includes an operation to remove the cancer and remove some normal tissue around the cancer. In this case, most of the breast will not be affected by the operation, but radiation therapy is required after surgery. As an associated side issue, it does concern me that women in rural and regional Australia, women in my electorate of Farrer, are faced with additional difficulties of distance and cost if they choose breast reduction surgery over mastectomy, because of the number of follow-up visits to a major hospital—often many miles away—that they may need, often necessitating overnight treatment. I raise this as an associated issue because the welfare of rural and regional women after being diagnosed with cancer is particularly important to me. I have seen the wonderful work that support women do in travelling between isolated women spread across the far-flung regions of New South Wales. They are providing extremely valuable support to women who are often isolated on farms and do not have that first-hand contact with somebody else who has or has had the disease. This isolation is a most important issue, as is our recognition of it in treating cancer and in supporting the survivors. The statistics indicate that more rural women than city women opt for mastectomy because of these difficulties. Given the shock and trauma associated with the loss of a breast, it is, I believe, regrettable that our New South Wales based area health services do not provide as much help as I believe they could with travel and accommodation costs.For women who choose mastectomy and choose a prosthesis there are issues of distress and adjustment. Of course, ideally they need to be professionally fitted and correctly weighted for posture and balance. Again, in rural areas it is particularly important that women have access to a local, trained prosthesis fitter. In reading some of the experiences of women, it is so important that the person who fits the prosthesis understands the emotion and the difficulties that the cancer survivor is facing, is not offhand or clinical and is the right person to do the job. I quite agree that women should, without question, have access to properly fitting mammary prostheses. Given that these generally do not last more than two years, this service should be ongoing rather than a once-off. Women who have had a breast removed through mastectomy should be able to wear a swimsuit, an evening dress or a T-shirt. They should not suffer from postural difficulties or pain, and they should never have to feel embarrassed, unfeminine or uncomfortable because they have had a breast removed. I quite agree that the idea of recycling the prostheses of women who have died is an absolute disgrace. On these things I am, I believe, in complete agreement with the members opposite. I recognise that there is an ongoing cost, including a financial cost, of wearing the required mammary prosthesis. However, this government does not believe that mammary prostheses should be provided through the Medicare rebate schedule—and that is our current policy. I am happy to be lobbied by members who believe differently and I am happy to discuss these issues with support groups, but this government believes that these aids and appliances are more appropriately provided by the states and territories as part of their responsibility for the provision of health services. The Commonwealth provides health grants to states and territories. The states and territories determine the priorities, and the funds are allocated to the many competing areas of government spending, including health and hospital services.The Medicare benefits schedule pays 75 per cent of the schedule fee for permanent breast implants during a surgical breast reconstruction. Of course, I recognise that women may not choose a surgical breast reconstruction. The Health Insurance Commission has determined that, because breast prostheses are not surgically implanted or considered part of an episode of hospital treatment, they are not covered by Medicare. The government has delivered on its commitment to Medicare through the Australian health care agreement with states and territories, and has provided funding totalling $31.7 billion over five years: a real increase of over 28 per cent on the previous Medicare agreement negotiated in 1993 by the previous Labor government.The increase includes about $3 billion that the states had agreed to pay back if private health insurance membership rose to its current level. The coalition has allowed the states to keep this money even though their public hospitals come under less pressure when more people use the private health system. The government has allowed the states to keep about $3 billion which previously the states had agreed to pay back. I think that is significant because we are happy—and our Minister for Health and Ageing has undertaken this—to discuss the funding of prostheses with the states in the context of the Australian health care agreements. When it is a matter of fighting for competing priorities, there is an expectation that the states, I believe, could afford the prostheses for the women who require them.I do agree, fully sympathise with, and understand the sentiments of, women who see one government kicking another one over something that is of extreme importance to them. I do not wish to play party politics in matters such as this, where women are coming to terms with breast cancer—both the illness and the disfigurement it may cause—and their families are struggling to cope with the reality of what this all means for them as often it is the mother, the central figure in the family, who may well have young children and who manages family happiness and family relationships so well, who is struck down by this disease, and it is absolutely devastating. I know that governments should be able to do better than simply point the finger of blame at each other.I believe this debate has very successfully raised the awareness of breast cancer in the community today. I remind the House that one in 12 women will develop breast cancer by the age of 75. Most breast cancers occur in women over 50 years of age, but it does develop in younger women. In New South Wales about 3,400 women are diagnosed each year. Men can develop breast cancer but it is rare: one in every 100.Let me conclude by saying again that our minister has said she is happy to discuss funding in the context of the Australian health care agreements between states and territories. I think it is time for the states to take up the offer and to consider the best use of the government grants that they receive from the Commonwealth. I am happy to play an ongoing role in supporting groups who wish to further this very important initiative. I stand ready to help them in whatever way I can.16:32:005617Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in support of the motion—moved by my colleague the member for Calwell—to provide women surviving breast cancer with mammary prostheses through the Medicare rebate. I was first contacted by Dr Linda Reaby OAM, patron of the Caring for You organisation, concerning the placement of mammary prostheses on the Medicare rebate list. I received her letter on 24 June this year and, following immediate discussions with the member for Calwell, we agreed that this was an issue which required the urgent attention of this parliament. I thank also the volunteers from Caring for You for meeting with us last week to further expand on this issue. It was back in 1995 that the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs recommended that, as a matter of urgency, the Minister for Human Services and Health amend the Medicare rebate schedule to include the provision of mammary prostheses. To this day, no government has acted on this important recommendation.Members would be aware of the trauma many women, who have survived or are living with breast cancer, live with. Much has been done to increase awareness and reduce the incidence of breast cancer among Australian women. Once a woman has been diagnosed with breast cancer and advised she requires an operation to remove one or both of her breasts, the very least she should expect is to live as normal a life as possible, and the government must support this. It is appalling that the current situation has women using bird seed or old stockings in their bras because they cannot afford the financial burden of mammary prostheses. It is estimated that the number of women undergoing breast cancer surgery in Australia approaches 1,000 each month, with more than one-third requiring a mastectomy. Indeed over a year there are 4,800 women requiring a mastectomy in the course of the treatment of their breast cancer. The member for Farrer, following some quite well-considered statements, spoke about the provision of the Medicare rebate for breast reconstruction. The average cost of a mammary prostheses is $360. If there are 4,800 women affected each year, the cost to Medicare would be just over $1.7 million. Compare this to breast reconstruction, which is currently free in the public health system. Reconstruction on average costs $7,000 per breast. So 4,800 breast reconstructions cost Medicare around $33.6 million per year. We are comparing a cost of just $1.7 million per year for prostheses to $33.6 million per year for breast reconstructions.At this point in time, of these women requiring mammary prostheses, 70 per cent cannot afford to purchase them at the time of fitting, 10 per cent are wearing bird seed or similar makeshift prostheses, one per cent choose not to wear any form of prosthesis and a staggering 91 per cent are wearing damaged, old, incorrect sized, hand-me-down protheses—or protheses from deceased people—from family or handouts from local health agencies. Because of the costs, there are also many women who, after acquiring a mammary prosthesis, resort to repairing their prostheses rather than replacing them after two years of use so as not to burden their family budgets. As we heard, women are using many means of repair, including band-aids, sticky tape, glue and any other means at their disposal. These figures have been compiled by the Caring for You organisation.While preparing this contribution, I spoke with Penny Dudding from the You Really are Beautiful shop in Newcastle. Penny set up the shop seven years ago because of the high number of women who do not even know about mammary prostheses. Penny told me that, though most of her clients are between 40 and 70 years of age, over the past seven years they have been getting younger. She said of her clients that approximately 30 per cent would have private health cover, 50 per cent were using the public system and 20 per cent would be covered by the NSW PADP system. Penny gave me the recent example of a 31-year-old woman who is currently six weeks down the track from having surgery. She has a nine-week-old baby. She had her operation in a private hospital, under private health insurance, and then discovered that the provision of a prosthesis was not covered by her health insurance.Many women who lose or partially lose a breast suffer tremendous psychological effects because breasts are seen by society as symbols of femininity and sexuality. Arguably, the provision of mammary prostheses is as important a part of breast cancer treatment as chemotherapy or radiation. Given the large number of affected women and the seriousness of this issue, the government must support the needs of women who have fought and won or continue to fight the horrors of breast cancer. We must now fight to ensure this vital part of breast cancer treatment is available to all those women who have survived or are still fighting breast cancer. (Time expired)16:37:005618Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I am pleased to speak on this motion today on the provision of mammary protheses for women who have suffered from breast cancer. There may be some members in the House who find it unusual that a man would wish to speak on an important issue such as this, but it is something that affects all men and women in a partnership. If a woman discovers a lump in her breast, hopefully her partner will be supportive as she awaits the results of tests and the concerns that go with it. Thankfully, in most cases, the tests turn out to be successful and the results are benign, and life goes on as normal—but it does not always happen that way. It must be a very traumatic and terrible time for couples when women are diagnosed with breast cancer.In some ways I can relate to that, because it is an issue that affects both men and women. About 12 years ago, I discovered a lump on the right side of my chest and, like most men, delayed going to the doctor for some time, until it became obvious that I had to have something done. Very quickly, I found myself undergoing surgery. I spent four days lying in hospital with a drainage tube hanging out of my chest, contemplating my future and awaiting the results of those tests. So I am very keen to support the women who suffer from breast cancer. The trauma and the concerns that I went through are nothing compared to what they go through, but I hope that, by saying that publicly, people will realise that it is an issue of concern to me.I am very pleased to continue the discussions on who should fund these prostheses. It is an important issue. I am pleased that the federal minister has said that she certainly would be happy for the Commonwealth to discuss the funding of these prostheses with the states within the context of the Australian health care agreements. I know that the minister is aware that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs recommended that the medical benefits schedule should be widened to include breast prostheses. I welcome the findings of that standing committee. The Medicare benefit arrangements were designed to provide assistance to people who incur medical expenses in relation to professional services rendered by qualified medical practitioners. That is why Medicare benefits are not payable for aids or appliances, including breast prostheses. I believe that the need for women to have breast prostheses—and I am not a medical professional—is really a medical issue and women should be entitled to them. Every woman, no matter what her income or background, should be entitled to the dignity and the availability of these prostheses. It is important to find a satisfactory resolution to this concern. I am advised that some private health insurers rebate the cost of these prostheses as part of their ancillary cover, and I welcome the fact that people can privately insure for this. But the fundamental issue is that the funding of these prostheses for public patients in hospitals is a matter for the state and territory health departments. I know it frustrates people when they are in need of a breast prosthesis or some other health care to see governments arguing as to whether the federal government or the state governments should pay, but it is an undeniable fact that the Commonwealth government has provided unprecedented growth in funding for hospitals during the current five-year Medicare agreement. Over the five years of the life of this agreement, which ends next year, the Commonwealth will have increased its support for public hospital services by around 28 per cent. That is very important, but it is cold comfort for those women who are seeking support to enable them to have a breast prosthesis. I certainly will continue discussions with the minister and with the government on this issue. I urge all state and territory governments, which are given the resources from the Commonwealth government to provide assistance with breast prostheses, to look sympathetically at this very important issue which affects Australian men and women. I appreciate the opportunity that has been available to me to speak on this motion.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate5619Question proposed:That grievances be noted.561916:43:005619Jackson, Sharryn, MPMs JACKSON00AN2HasluckALP00—I wish to raise an important matter today that ultimately threatens the viability of the Swan and Canning rivers and their environs in the Perth metropolitan area. I have previously told the House about the magnificent work being done by community land care and natural resource management groups in the Swan region. The Swan region includes my electorate of Hasluck, as well as the electorates of Canning, Tangney and Pearce in the Perth metropolitan and peri-urban areas. There are 17 catchment groups and over 200 other environmental groups operating in the region. They represent many thousands of community volunteers. I am amazed at and thankful for the ability of these groups and their coordinators to attract volunteers from the community to become involved in land care activities in the region. I am not aware of any other program or project that has captured the energy or the hearts and minds of so many volunteers, and I have been particularly privileged to visit many of the projects that have been undertaken by these groups in my electorate. The reason I rise to speak today is the fear that those groups and I share that the funding they receive for the continued coordination of their projects within the electorate of Hasluck is at risk.I would like to take some time to cover the information that I have received. Firstly, in answer to a dorothy dix question last week, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry acknowledged the work of these very same volunteers and commented about community Landcare projects. Of course, it was National Landcare Week, and perhaps that is why he chose not to reveal what appears to be the truth about the current uncertainty of NHT extension funding to urban community Landcare and natural resource management groups. These groups receive funding for their projects from a variety of sources: the private sector, federal, state and local governments, as well as the community itself. However, their major source of funding, particularly that which resources the employment of the 11 community Landcare coordinators currently employed in the Swan region, comes from the Natural Heritage Trust. Their funding ceases in September—just next week.The Natural Heritage Trust was heralded by this government as a billion-dollar investment over five years—approximately $200 million per annum. In recent budget papers the figure of $250 million was put forward, allegedly for NHT funding. That is not the only reference we have had to this funding. Indeed, on 14 May 2002 a joint press release was made by the two ministers who have some responsibility for NHT funding—the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. In that press release, Dr Kemp tells us:At least $350 million of the new Trust funding will be spent directly on measures to improve water quality. For example, Rivercare projects will support improved land and water practices that affect the health of our rivers. Coastcare and Rivercare funding will also target coastal and urban water quality hot spots such as the Parramatta River, Moreton Bay, Port Adelaide, the Derwent Estuary, Port Phillip Bay, the Cooks and Georges Rivers and—importantly, I might add—the Swan/Canning Rivers.That is the very area that I am talking about today.As I said earlier, the minister referred to the funding for NHT in answer to a question he gave last week. He claimed that this government had made a $2.5 billion commitment to the Natural Heritage Trust. With these figures of $250 million, $2.5 billion and $350 million being thrown around, you can imagine my surprise when I heard the figures that community Landcare groups in my electorate have been advised of by senior bureaucrats responsible for NHT funding. They have been told by those bureaucrats that much less money will be made available than has been publicly indicated by the government. Current estimates from these friendly visiting bureaucrats indicate that in truth the government is considering making only between $50 million and $100 million available in this interim year. Remember that the government has promised at least between $200 million and $250 million, depending on which press release you read or which minister you are talking to—substantially less than what has been promised.Compounding this problem are the current guidelines for the coordination and facilitation stream for the transitional year of the NHT, which I might say is the source of the funding for the 11 community coordinator positions in the Swan region. The guidelines state that priority will be for positions that provide support for rural community groups engaged in Landcare and sustainable agricultural activities. I do not denigrate the need for funding to be directed to rural communities for Landcare projects—quite the contrary. However, as Pat Hart, who is the chairperson of the Canning Catchment Co-ordinating Group in my electorate, said to me in her letter: We also have grave concerns at the proposed reduction in funding ... for urban Landcare groups. We acknowledge the major issue with salinity in our rural areas and recognise the urgency. We also recognise the huge environmental problems facing the Swan/Canning catchments where we have 1.3 million people located on a relatively small area. A very fragile, ancient landscape that has major environmental problems. In the Canning Catchment we have seen major blue/green algae outbreaks, wetland destruction on a major scale and severe dieback impact on bushland. The Canning River identified as the worst weed affected river in the State with severe loss of aquatic species. The Canning/Wungong/Southern Rivers suffering severe silting and loss of natural flow. There are grave concerns also by catchment coordinators with their future positions ... The incredible impact of the educational and awareness programs implemented by these groups should not be underestimated. The continuation of these programs is critical to ensure real positive environmental changes. To take away these programs will set the catchment back years and will mean a real financial loss through the work already put into their management. Outstanding achievements are, and have occurred through Urban Catchment Groups.That is why I rise today, and those are the issues that I particularly want to put on the record about this Natural Heritage Trust funding. It is time, I think—and I call on the government—to be honest about the situation for NHT funding for urban Landcare groups.What are the arrangements for these programs in capital cities and large regional centres in other parts of Australia? Is Western Australia being treated in a less equitable manner than other states? And what has the government got to say about the so-called partnership between government and the community in natural resource management? What value is a partnership when the federal government feel that they can walk away with no regard for or commitment to projects well under way? Are they expecting that the costs for these projects will be picked up either by state governments or by local governments and the community itself? How ironic that we have this government holding an inquiry into state government allegedly cost shifting to local government when here is a classic example of the federal government doing the same thing. How dare they make public calls for priority projects under new arrangements and let the bureaucrats go out there and tell people that there will not be enough money to fund them. How credible can a government be that calls publicly for projects and yet does not or will not make the commitment to fund them? And, if there are funds made available through the Envirofund stream, what community groups are going to be left to implement them?The work of the community—who have contributed, as I have said, many thousands of voluntary hours over seven years, having been supported by government projects—is likely to be wasted if their funding is not continued. It also runs contrary to the kinds of commitments that have been made to these groups by various ministers, most recently in correspondence in late May, where, in a letter to the Chairperson of the Swan Catchment Council, Mr Michael Grasby, Minister David Kemp said:Mr Truss and I understand your views on the importance of urban Landcare projects and wish to emphasise that the government is committed to ensuring that these projects continue to be supported under the extension of the trust.If that is the case, where is the funding? I would say that the overall administration of the transition from NHT to the Natural Heritage Trust extension has been lacking in leadership and direction and, frankly, at a policy level, is downright inept. I urge the government to support the Swan Canning catchment region and their urban Landcare coordinators.562116:53:005621Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—I raise a matter in this grievance debate concerning allegations made by the member for Hunter during last Thursday's adjournment debate. Firstly, I would like to thank the member for Hunter for his confidence in my powers as a local member. The member made allegations that I was responsible for the sacking of Arch Humphrey from the position of Chair of the Hunter Area Consultative Committee for retribution for a project that did not receive funding. I do not know what powers the member for Hunter thinks local members have, but local members do not have the power to personally sack someone from a position such as chair of an area consultative committee. That is the sole responsibility of the department. I understand that Mr Humphrey served three 12-month terms as a chair; perhaps the department thought it was time for a fresh direction. I only ever had discussions with departmental officials after Mr Humphrey was dismissed and not before that.There are many area consultative committees around the country, which play an important role in facilitating partnerships with government. In my electorate of Paterson, which has been heavily affected by dairy deregulation in Gloucester and Dungog, the Hunter Area Consultative Committee and the Mid-North Coast Area Consultative Committee work with communities to find projects that will create employment opportunities in the area.This is really the heart of my grievance. This is about jobs and creating jobs—something that Labor has a very poor record on, particularly when you look at unemployment rates in the Hunter. It should be of no surprise that the business community warms to the coalition, because the coalition has delivered outstanding economic conditions for business growth. The Howard government's management of the economy has produced an environment that supports business growth including, in particular, historically low interest rates and continuing low inflation. This ensures that Australia is largely protected from the external shocks that have so destabilised other economies in our region. Sound management of the Australian economy allows businesses to get on with what they do best—namely, running their businesses—confident that the economic policy settings will provide a solid underpinning for forward growth plans. This leads me to allegations made by the member for Hunter concerning Mr Joe Sepos from Sepos Transport. Mr Sepos is a very successful businessman and, like other business operators, he talks to the coalition because the coalition supports policies that support small businesses such as his. Mr Sepos was looking to invest in the electorate of Paterson and, in particular, in the town of Dungog in a project that involved setting up a tyre retreading facility and a stock crate manufacturing unit. I mentioned earlier that Dungog has been severely affected by dairy deregulation. The creation of jobs in this town is vital for its future and to support the existing economy. Mr Sepos's interest in investing in Dungog arose when I was the Liberal candidate for Paterson. As an advocate for supporting job creation and employment opportunities in the area, it is no surprise that I contacted the Hunter Area Consultative Committee to see if this project would be eligible for funding under the Dairy Regional Assistance Program.On 22 October, I took Mr Sepos to meet with the Mayor of Dungog Shire Council, Steve Low, other councillors, Barry Ryan, the Mayor of Gloucester Shire Council, and others to look at the possibility of site selection for the project. After this, I spoke to Arch Humphrey, the then chair, about the project. He directed me to talk to Kath Elliot, the CEO of the Hunter Area Consultative Committee. I was advised that Mr Sepos should contact them directly to discuss the matter. The amazing thing about this allegation of the member for Hunter is that Sepos Transport did not even put in to the minister a formal application for funding. It turned out to be cheaper for his business to import retreaded tyres rather than make them locally. It was clearly a business decision that stopped Sepos Transport further pursuing government funding. Sepos Transport also directly approached state bodies on this project, which advised them to contact the Hunter Area Consultative Committee about Dairy RAP funding.The member for Hunter's allegation that I harassed members of the Hunter Area Consultative Committee to try to obtain funding for the project is ridiculous and is an insult. In fact, it is a blatant lie and misleads the parliament. Is it wrong that the area consultative committee is asked to look at a project that will create jobs in an area? I do not think so. If you asked people whether representatives should push for more projects that will create local jobs, most would say yes. People expect local representatives to bring to government projects and ideas to create jobs. I saw this project as an opportunity to create jobs for the area, so I sought the advice of HACC on this issue. Asking for direction on a project can hardly be called harassment, and it is probably something that the member for Hunter needs to do to bring down the unemployment rates in areas in his own electorate, like Cessnock.The allegation that I was seeking retribution for a project that did not receive funding is quite ridiculous, given that the business made a business decision not to pursue funding. How can I seek retribution for a project that did not receive funding if the people behind the project decided not to put in an application for funding in the first place? What is interesting about this is that the former member for Paterson called Mr Sepos when it was announced that Sepos was looking at investing in the local area. The former member was disappointed that he was not involved in the announcement. The simple fact is, though, that Sepos Transport wanted the backing of a party that supports small business. Sepos Transport is like many companies that know Labor does not support policies that support small businesses, and the coalition has an outstanding record on this issue. The member for Hunter, who was shadow minister for small business at the time, has shown little support for or understanding of small business. The proof of that lies in the fact that Labor has blocked unfair dismissal laws 19 times since 1996. If the Labor Party wants the support of small businesses, it is time it started supporting policies that enable small businesses like those in the Hunter to grow.In addition, the member for Hunter raised an allegation that I spoke to a minister or a department about the sacking of Mr Humphrey for retribution for Mr Sepos's project not receiving funding. Sepos Transport made the inquiries themselves about various government funding programs, including state programs. I can and do talk to ministers and their officers about projects that I am aware have put in applications for funding, and there are many projects that I have written to the minister about concerning funding under the Dairy Regional Assistance Program.I am more than happy to promote and lobby for local projects, and that is exactly what every local member should be doing. If people come to me with an application for funding under any Commonwealth, state or local program, I am more than happy to support the application. Does the member for Hunter really think that in a marginal seat such as Paterson I have the time to be scheming about who should or should not be on the boards of every single committee in the Hunter Valley? As for the allegation that I wanted Mr Humphrey removed and replaced by Mr Bob Geoghegan, it is, again, a complete joke. As a Maitland councillor, as the owner and operator of a very successful small business and as a great Liberal candidate for the state seat of Maitland, Mr Geoghegan has his hands too full to even consider such a role.Finally, there was also an allegation—and there were lies—that there was an inappropriate arrangement between Mr Geoghegan and me over the leasing arrangements for a building for my office when I was the member for Paterson between 1996-98. I refer to a letter from McDonald Johnson Solicitors to Mr Geoghegan, dated 25 November 1995, about entering into an agreement to lease a building to Hills Solicitors. Hills Solicitors' architect, Andrew Pender, assisted in the design of the building for Hills's requirements. Late in 1997—after the building was built—when Hills did not proceed with the lease as they had chosen another office on the site, I became aware that it was available for lease, and I requested the Department of Finance and Administration to pursue it as an option in October 1997. The claims by the member for Hunter that I moved to these offices from High Street Maitland in 1996 are false, as I did not relocate until January 1998, after the building was built. Furthermore, documents show that negotiations on the lease of this building by Hills Solicitors started in November 1995, well before the 1996 election when I became the member for Paterson. But, more importantly, it is the Department of Finance and Administration that administers and negotiates leases on behalf of government; it is not local members. I think it is quite clear, from the points I have made today, that the member for Hunter drew a long bow with the allegations he made in parliament last week and that he has misled and lied to the parliament. 10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! The honourable member for Paterson has used the word `lie' on two occasions now. I missed the first one and will have to revisit it. The member for Paterson would know that the chair does not like the word `lie'. It is blatantly against the standing orders and has to be withdrawn.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWIN—If that is the case, I will withdraw the word `lie' and replace it with `blatantly mishandled the truth'.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—We must revisit the other instance where you made allegations about a statement being a lie, which was earlier in your speech—LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWIN—Yes.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—If it was a reference to the member for Hunter, it must be withdrawn as well.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWIN—I will withdraw it and replace it with `mishandled the truth recklessly'.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—I think that is a little over the top, too. I think you could probably find a better word.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWIN—The member for Hunter has blatantly gone out and misrepresented the truth to this House. He needs to apologise to the House for the accusations he has made against me as the member for Paterson.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—I ask the member for Paterson to withdraw the references to `lie' in his speech.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWIN—I will withdraw the references to `lie'.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Thank you.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWIN—And I seek to replace them with `blatantly mishandled the truth'. (Time expired)562417:03:005624Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I grieve for the rise of the new political correctness—the hypocritical demand of the conservative establishment in this country for civility in political debate. Imagine the hide of these people—the old money interests, the conservative think tanks, the Tory MPs and their fellow travellers in the commercial media. They have spent the last 20 years hopping into the unemployed, Aboriginal communities, newly arrived migrants and anyone else at the bottom of the social ladder, and now they want civility. This is the height of hypocrisy. They want civility on just one side of the political fence: the sort of civility by which George Pell is automatically declared innocent, while Justice Michael Kirby and other social reformers are slandered in the Senate; the sort of civility whereby big business is allowed to regulate itself, while the rest of society receives a truckload of mutual obligation; the sort of civility where the work ethic of the royal family is beyond question, while the member for Warringah can call young unemployed Australians `job snobs'. For the establishment, civility is a way of preserving the social pecking order. It helps the ruling class to avoid public scrutiny and accountability. It tells working people to accept their lot in life, without challenging the power and privilege of the Tory elite. This is a new political correctness, where sameness is embraced and rebellion is written off as rude. The old political correctness, with its unspoken truths and protection of special interests, was bad enough; the new one is twice as bad. It threatens to turn us into a nation of robots, without the irreverence and daring that have always defined our national character. Bit by bit, it is chipping away at our cultural identity, eroding the great Australian traditions of larrikinism and mateship.For the Tories, civility is important for another reason: it is code for the re-election of the Howard government. The conservative establishment is trying to turn this government into a protected species, beyond criticism and beyond condemnation. No matter how many times the Prime Minister hugs the Americans or tugs his forelock to the royal family, the establishment will defend him and then have the hide to claim that the Howard government is protecting Australia's national sovereignty. This is the defining characteristic of Tory politics: double standards—led by the member for Warringah. He says that he supports community based politics, yet he has an obsessive hatred of Australia's largest community based organisation, the trade union movement. He claims that the ALP is no longer a working-class party, yet he had kittens when I used a great working-class term to describe the Prime Minister's sycophancy toward the United States.Indeed, the establishment was out in force on that issue. In the Daily Telegraph, Michael Duffy said:No matter how they try to justify the language they use, Crean and Latham are basically just letting the public see how blokes in the Labor Party and the unions talk all the time.In the Sydney Morning Herald, Paddy McGuinness called it `a vulgar attack on the Prime Minister'. Piers Akerman called it a `linguistic shortcoming'. Michael Duffy, Paddy McGuinness and Paddington Piers are the same people who have been claiming for a decade that Labor no longer represents the values and language of working-class Australians. They are the same people who complain about the chattering classes and other elites, yet they cannot stand the sound of Australian slang. This simply exposes their cant and hypocrisy. Civility is the new establishment catchcry. Writing in the Australian newspaper, Janet Albrechtsen said that she found parents barracking for their children at Saturday morning sport, `having a go at the ref, yelling abuse' to be morally offensive. The Minister for Education, Science and Training piously repeated this view in parliament last week. This is typical of the Tories, trying to take the passion and commitment out of life, reducing us to a culture of conformity where we no longer challenge authority figures. They want to take the irreverence and spark out of the Australian character and turn us into a nation of conservative clones. According to their world view, people should be one dimensional, passively accepting their place in society.On the Labor side of politics, we believe in the richness of human nature—that social stability need not be incompatible with the values of compassion and creativity. Albrechtsen and Dr Nelson fail to understand that the parents who take their children to sport and passionately support them are the good parents, the ones who care, the ones who are most likely to look out for and assist the kids in need. The minister for education may be a bland and passionless character himself—in most respects, unAustralian—but he should not expect other people to lead their lives this way. What sort of society would we be if parents did not feel emotional about their children? People are not one dimensional. Social cohesion, compassion and creativity can coexist.Albrechtsen is another filthy hypocrite. Who is she to lecture people on civility? She is someone who hates feminism, describing other women as `totalitarian' and `self-obsessed' just because they support paid maternity leave. She is someone who uses terms such as `F...wittage' in her columns. So much for civility.This is the great fraud of Australian politics. When Pauline Hanson gave her maiden speech in this place, heaping abuse on Asians, Aborigines and anyone else different to her, the Prime Minister said that the era of political censorship had ended. Now the Tories are trying to impose their own form of censorship—a new political correctness that defends the political interests of the Howard government. There is, of course, nothing civil about the government's electoral strategy. It aims to turn Australians against each other through the politics of division. This is a replica of the culture war in the United States, the type of strategy that inspired Pat Buchanan to write the following memo to Richard Nixon in the late 1960s: `We should tear the country in two and then pick up the bigger piece politically.' A similar piece of thinking is now on the public record in this country. Last month Paul Kelly interviewed the Prime Minister on his 63rd birthday and subsequently wrote:Howard is going to focus on social policy this term and set out to smash the post-Whitlam political alliance between the working class and the tertiary-educated Left that defines modern Labor. The refugee issue severed this alliance at the 2001 poll and Howard will follow up with new campaigns.In fact, the progressive consensus in Australian politics is holding up remarkably well. Whether people live in the inner city or the outer suburbs, they want greater social investment in education and health. So, too, they want a more sustainable urban environment, with less congestion and pollution. On social policy, even the member for Warringah has conceded there is little public support for winding back Australia's abortion and divorce laws or reversing the many progressive gains achieved by women in recent decades.If the Prime Minister is to smash the progressive consensus in this country, he will target questions of race and responsibility. Twelve months ago today, when they came together on the Tampa, they divided the nation. As the Prime Minister demonstrated in the 1980s, racism is always lurking just below the surface of conservative politics. It is a feature of the Tory newspaper columnists: examples include Akerman's current campaign against Australian Muslims and attempts by the little bigot, Mike Gibson, to slag Asian and negro athletes. I have no doubt that the establishment is gearing up for further campaigns based on race and responsibility. Indeed, the Tory dogs of war are mobilising against multiculturalism. They see this as a spin-off from Tampa and September 11.When Australia's leading neoconservative think tank, the Centre for Independent Studies, focuses on an issue, it is a sign that the Howard government will soon follow. Last year the CIS sponsored lectures by Vaclav Klaus in which he attacked the European ideal. Such was the intensity of his ultranationalism, it was like an echo from 1914 or 1939. In the November issue of Quadrant, the CIS Senior Fellow, Wolfgang Kasper, advocated a return to racially based immigration policies under the banner of `cultural transaction costs'. Earlier this year the CIS hosted a speaking tour by Daniel Pipes, the American anti-Islamic campaigner who equates Islamic law with Stalinism. The policy direction is clear, but so too is the hypocrisy. Ironically enough, the CIS has joined the civility campaign. It is a terrible shame, however, that this civility does not extend to European internationalists, Muslims or people who are culturally different to Wolfgang Kasper.The government is also engaged in a double standard. At the last election it said, `We decide who comes into this country and under what conditions.' Yet in other areas of public policy it allows foreigners to call the shots. It allows Australia's foreign policy to be determined in Washington. When the Americans say jump, the Prime Minister asks: `How high?' On constitutional reform, its stance is determined in London. The member for Warringah was born in Britain and always puts British interests first. Recently he also spoke of the Catholicisation of the Liberal Party. Some people thought this was a reference to the way in which Piers Akerman, Nancy Boy Bolt and Christopher Pearson act as press secretaries for both the Howard government and George Pell. In fact, the member for Warringah outlined a new and more significant trend in Liberal policy making. Catholicisation means that the Liberal Party's social policies are being determined in Rome. This is the ultimate hypocrisy. The government may decide who comes into the country but, increasingly, its other policies are being decided in Washington, London and Rome. By contrast, Labor is anti-establishment. We aim to help the outsiders, those disenfranchised by the Tory network of businessmen, think tanks, media lackeys and coalition MPs. As far as I am concerned, if you want civility in Canberra, buy a parrot.562617:13:005626Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister10—Today I would like to speak on a very important issue that affects not only my electorate of Lindsay but the broader region of Western Sydney, of which the member for Werriwa's seat is a part. He touched ever so briefly on it in his grievance. The issue that I raise a grievance about is how the people of Western Sydney will live in the future—it is an issue of lifestyle.Western Sydney has come a long way from a largely rural population of 627,000 to what is now the third largest economy in Australia, behind Sydney and Melbourne. Western Sydney now has a population of 1.74 million. According to the census data released earlier this year, Penrith, which is part of my electorate, has one of the largest populations of nought- to five-year-olds in the country. The mayor of Penrith has recently been quoted as saying the Penrith area's population has grown by 400 per cent in 40 years and that it would have 50,000 more people in the next 20 years. These figures underline the fact that Western Sydney is an important area of growth. With a four-month-old and a two-year-old, I am guilty of adding to this demographic. I would like them to own a home in the area when they grow up, to be a part of my life and to live close by, but only if it offers them a lifestyle that is the same as, or better than, the one I enjoy. This is where I take issue with the inability of our planning authorities to keep pace with this growth.There is little doubt that many planning mistakes have been made in New South Wales, and a lot of them have been made in Western Sydney. All levels of government can be blamed, but the responsibility for planning lies largely with the state government and, to a smaller degree, with local government. And it is the state and local governments that continue to make the same mistakes. There seems to be no corporate knowledge of past errors in planning, and major mistakes are being repeated. For example, at Homebush, Newington offers many things, but not sufficient parking for the residents' cars, let alone visitors' cars.The New South Wales government seem to have a penchant for filling my electorate and others in Western Sydney with houses, turning Western Sydney into a big dormitory suburb. They do this with no thought for providing those new residents with infrastructure such as schools, child care, hospitals or transport required for an enjoyable lifestyle. Perhaps their biggest planning mistake is not providing for employment. Whilst my electorate is enjoying some of the lowest unemployment it has ever known, thanks largely to the policies of the Howard government, too many people in my electorate travel up to four hours each day just getting to and from work. This takes them away from home from seven in the morning until seven at night, thereby missing valuable and enjoyable parenting hours. After seven each evening children tend to be a bit fractious and unreasonable, and it is really time for quiet and strict parenting rather than for loud, interactive fun times.Before the last election, the state government planned to build 8,000 houses on endangered Cumberland Plain woodland on the former ADI site at St Marys. It was not until this government stepped in that these plans were scuttled somewhat by ensuring that the entire 828 hectares of Cumberland Plain woodland on the site would be protected. It also happened that this extra land for the regional park was over the top of what had been proposed to be land for jobs. So what is happening is that that land has gone and no more land is being found for jobs. The Department of Planning is quite happy to proceed with the project, using the remaining land for houses, with no further land for jobs.In December, the New South Wales Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Dr Andrew Refshauge, released a further 17,000 acres for development in my electorate and in that of my colleague the member for Macarthur. This land was not released to develop roads, schools or public transport; it was definitely not released to create long-term employment. And there were no hospitals. This land was released to build another 89,000 houses. There are different state departments for health, education, planning, public transport and roads, and herein lies the problem. The New South Wales government has a fragmented approach to development. It seems that everyone has a responsibility but no-one is responsible for ensuring the overall effect is a nice lifestyle in Western Sydney and not a rabbit warren existence similar to that of inner city residents who need a permit to park—if they can find one—and where visitors pay for parking.I am not the first person to recognise this problem. As is often the case when those opposite leave politics, they begin to speak sense and learn the error of their ways. Former Deputy Prime Minister Brian Howe, in the journal Australian Planner of 2001, said:Indeed it was often the case that major infrastructure followed development rather than shaping it and the approach of governments tended to be fragmented and poorly coordinated.The state Carr government still has this fragmented approach to development, preferring to leave the Lend Leases, Macquaries and Mirvacs responsible for building the communities of the future. Is it appropriate for private enterprise, major international companies with the capital to invest in these large housing estates, to be responsible for the communities they build or the communities that surround those new housing estates? They answer to shareholders, who demand a return for their investment. Perhaps there should be a code of conduct for such company developments. The employees of these companies who design these `communities of the future' live in the inner city or, even worse, interstate. They do not understand what it is to have to travel up to four hours each day just to get to and from work, and they do not understand what pressure this travel time places on families, especially those with young children. In all the time that I have been discussing these issues with these so-called planners, I have discovered one thing: I am the only person they have spoken to who comes from Western Sydney. These people do not speak to the people that I do, the people I meet on the train stations very early in the mornings—from six onwards—and the people who kiss and ride at seven in the morning and who do not see their children again until they are getting ready for bed. Again, they are missing invaluable parenting time. With dual income families, it gets more distressing: weekends become ever more precious, and the community as a whole is then pressed for a lot of those community hours that were generally available between a couple to give to the community on weekends. At this moment, we are spending it all parenting. The people who are designing these so-called communities do not understand what it is like to live in the communities they design. Again, there is a lack of corporate knowledge. What government needs is a coordinated approach, one that takes into account the way that people actually live their lives and how they would like their children to live equally enjoyable lives. Not many people want to spend four hours each day travelling to and from work. We need to be planning employment for the thousands of people who are moving to areas such as Western Sydney. We need to be planning housing estates with wide streets sufficient for the cars that come with the family lifestyle that we have in Western Sydney and the penchant that people in Western Sydney have for the motor vehicle, given the appalling lack of public transport in the area. At best, there is a drive to the railway station and then public transport to your place of employment. If you are working and you want to pick up the kids and stop off to get some groceries on the way home then, really, the car is the only way to go. Most houses in Western Sydney tend to contain dual car families, if not more if you have adult or teenage sons. Again, in these new estates you need parking that delivers on that. We have a high number of self-employed in the trucking industry and, again, a lot of these estates are not providing parking for our workers' trucks. I suggest to Bob Carr, the Premier of New South Wales, that he bring all these issues into a central agency, an agency that brings planning, health, education and transport together. I am proposing that he establish, effectively, a ministry for lifestyle that oversees everything that is going ahead so that you cannot have one department rolling out 89,000 houses and another department not simultaneously rolling out the hospital care to cater for the people who will come to those houses or the roads department not rolling out the high-speed networks that will be needed for those 89,000 households and the education department also not rolling out the schools for the public education that will be required for those 89,000 households. The issue has reached crisis point. I encourage Bob Carr to call a tri-level seminar for all levels of government to approach this problem and find a solution for Western Sydney.562817:22:005628Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I grieve today for the failure of the Howard government to design and implement a comprehensive long-term policy to deal with refugee and asylum seeker issues. I am sure it would not have escaped the House's attention that today is the anniversary of the commencement of the Tampa incident. The Tampa incident started on 26 August last year when a routine surveillance flight by Coastwatch revealed the presence of a vessel approximately 80 nautical miles north-west of Christmas Island. This vessel was the KM Palapa, which was carrying 433 potential asylum seekers en route to Australia before it broke down. We all know what happened after that, but I ask the House to speculate what would have happened had the KM Palapa not broken down but successfully reached Ashmore Reef or Christmas Island. I suggest, in those circumstances, that the Howard government would have done no more than what it did with respect to the 213 boats that arrived earlier, between the election of the Howard government and the day that the Palapa was picked up by Australian Coastwatch. We know that in respect of those boats—some 213 boats carrying 11,513 people—the Howard government did nothing. We need to paint the picture here, because these arrivals included arrivals on the eastern coast of Australia, including one near Townsville, one near Scotts Head on the mid-north coast of New South Wales and one as far south as Port Kembla. This was an increasing and visible problem.In the face of this increasing and visible problem, the Howard government did very little at all, even though it had to have known from intelligence reports that the forthcoming wave of boat people was eminently foreseeable. Known and identifiable factors relating to the likelihood of boat arrivals included: a closing of borders in European countries; the consolidation of Taliban rule in Afghanistan from 1995-96 onwards; continuing oppression in Iraq; easier and cheaper travel and advances in worldwide communications technology facilitating travel and the knowledge of destinations; and the growth of people-smuggling with people smugglers promoting Australia as a next best destination to Europe. All of these things were well known, and yet the Howard government seemed caught—stunned—when all these identifiable and knowable factors translated into unauthorised arrivals. In the face of these unauthorised arrivals, the Howard government did nothing except maintain Labor's policy of mandatory detention. The Howard government did not take any of the actions required to address the issues. It did not do anything to improve our coastal surveillance or to detect and smash people-smuggling rings, it did not do anything in the global or regional debate to deal with the emerging problem, it did not review any of its aid programs to see whether it could ameliorate the reasons that were causing people to move and it did not expand any of the processing resources in transit countries. Indeed, the enormity of the Howard government's failure is starkly shown by the fact that it was not until May 2000 that the government bothered to focus on people-smuggling through the establishment of a joint DIMIA-Australian Federal Police strike team.But the arrival of the Palapa—the boat carrying the people then rescued by the Tampa—was too good a political opportunity to miss. In the face of that political opportunity, while behind in the polls and about to face an election, the Howard government hastily contrived what has become known as the Pacific solution. It is very important that we understand what the Pacific solution truly is, because it suits this government to place under that umbrella all the initiatives it has hastily scrambled around to cobble together since the arrival of the Tampa and since its decision to deal with this issue in an electoral context. The bundle of policies that it has engaged in since that time include, for example, the deployment of Operation Relex—the naval blockade—and increased Australian Federal Police resources in Indonesia. Properly viewed, neither of those things is contingent on the so-called Pacific solution, which is the detention and processing of people in third countries in the Pacific.Labor supports coastal security. It believes that it can be done in a better and more sustainable way than Operation Relex, through a purpose specific coastguard. Labor supports the deployment of Australian Federal Police in Indonesia and increasing resources as necessary to enable those Federal Police to be involved in the detection and disruption of people-smuggling activities. Those things are supportable, sustainable and not part of the so-called Pacific solution. In respect of each, Labor has a better plan than the current government for maintaining coastal surveillance and for policing in Indonesia.Since the arrival of the Tampa, the government has had a scramble on to begin engaging with our region about people-smuggling issues. This has led to the Bali summit, which we heard about again today in question time. Labor believes that more could have been achieved had this regional engagement happened earlier. It is still a policy failure of some magnitude for this government that people-smuggling remains not a crime in Indonesia. Our capacity to deal with people smugglers is fundamentally undermined by the Howard government's failure to negotiate that simple change to Indonesian law.The so-called Pacific solution—stripped of the other policies that the government has scrambled around and tried to put in place since the Tampa—is really no more than the processing of people offshore in third countries. It is a policy that Labor does not support, because it achieves nothing and costs so much in so many ways—in money, in goodwill in our region and in division in our community. I would like briefly to take the House to the three principal problems with the so-called Pacific solution: costs, unsustainability and the fact that it delivers no outcomes.I suspect that more has been written about the cost of the so-called Pacific solution than almost any other single topic in the last 12 months, but we still do not know the truth because the Howard government has not disclosed it. But we do know, courtesy of a leaked email that I have received from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, that the department's annual appropriation has doubled over the life of the Howard government and now stands at a staggering $1.13 billion. Yet despite this astounding figure, on 5 August this year the acting secretary of the department emailed staff to inform them as follows:Some months ago, as part of the budget planning and review exercise, all divisions and state and territory offices were asked to develop detailed submissions of planning priorities and resource requirements for 2002-03 and beyond. The finance committee under my chairmanship met on 22 July 2002 to examine these submissions in the light of expenditure last year, forward estimates and new areas of pressure. We determined that, unless we took action, we were heading for a projected operating loss this year and in subsequent years of some $30 million per annum.So, despite an allocation of $1.13 billion, the department is heading for a loss of $30 million per annum. Surely we must say this is the so-called Pacific solution that bankrupted the department of immigration. We ask the government to come clean and say what is going to be cut: the compliance activities to catch illegal workers; the processing of family reunion applications—the minister at the table, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, may have an interest in that in her capacity as a local member—or the processing of skilled migration applications? What is going to be cut to fill in the $30 million black hole?We know that the Pacific solution is unsustainable from the point of view of our agreements with Papua New Guinea and Nauru, with both of them stating substantial reservations about the continuance of the so-called Pacific solution. And we know that it delivers absolutely no outcomes, in that people are being resettled here from the so-called Pacific solution, despite this government's direct denials during the election campaign that that would happen. It is no wonder that they are herding these refugees onto Australian soil under cover of darkness—because they know how humiliating that is.In the minute that remains to me, I will deal very briefly with the issue of children in detention, which was raised in question time today. Members opposite will get the opportunity to vote for Labor's amendment. It deals with getting unaccompanied children, as defined by the government's own laws, out of detention. So you cannot vote against it because it is a bad definition—it is your definition. It also deals with getting accompanied children into a trial like the Woomera alternate detention trial. That is a trial evaluated by your own department as successful. I am going to be amazed to see on what basis you vote against it, if you do. (Time expired)563017:32:005630Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I was listening to ABC Radio National last Saturday when a contributor lamented that no-one seemed to have a 20-year vision for rural and regional Australia. You would expect that sort of statement from someone like the member for Hasluck, whom we heard just a few speeches before lamenting our environmental credentials and mouthing the Labor Party policy. Anybody out there who has been remotely attuned to what has been going on with natural resource sustainability in this country would have understood that there has in fact been a revolution since 1996 in terms of the greatest investment this country has ever seen in natural resource management and in the way we are now dealing catchment by catchment and across landscapes to try to deliver sustainable natural resources. It is the first time the issue has been tackled across catchments in this country. It is the first time salinity has been tackled on a national basis. All of that is due, of course, to the change of government in 1996.So I listened to this observation on ABC radio, that there was no-one with a 20-year vision, and I thought I should put the record straight and talk about the concentrated refocus on the environment, social and physical infrastructure and the virtual revolution that has occurred throughout regional Australia since the first Howard government in 1996 when I and the member at the table, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, were first elected. Before 1996, for example, mobile phone coverage was a joke. Thousands of tiny telephone exchanges across the country were horse and buggy era and too antiquated to take modern communications—even as basic a communication as a fax, much less high speed Internet access. Generations of country people had developed a culture of ignoring serious symptoms because doctors were so few in number and so overworked. It was all too long a wait and too hard to get an extended consultation to sort out anything other than the most mundane. If there were mental health issues—perhaps depression—and issues with complex symptoms, you simply put off that consultation, with the consequence of poorer health for rural and regional families.Apprenticeships had fallen to an all-time low. In my region, additional qualified or apprentice plumbers, electricians, builders and boilermakers—all of them essential to the local economy—were impossible to find. Employers were in despair because, without any protection from Labor's unfair dismissal laws, they knew that, if they did take a gamble with a new entrant to the work force, there was a possibility of them having to pay for having taken that gamble through some punitive action via a settlement out of court with an unfair dismissal case. They knew that it would be much smarter for them not to try to take on the new, untried person and perhaps set themselves up for a $7,000 or $8,000 payout, even if they were absolutely legitimate in what they did in terms of that unfair dismissal.Federal highways like the Goulburn Valley carried bumper-to-bumper heavy transports loaded with export and domestic product, and they ducked and weaved along a single lane. In the winter of 1996—the last time we had decent winter rains—a number of local family members lost their lives as they waited in pouring rain to make a right-hand turn and were hit from the rear. Country people lost their lives on dangerously inadequate federal highways. Their fresh produce was invariably downgraded after its swinging, stop-start journey to the market. But it did not matter much at all what happened to the prime produce on the way to the port, since the time it took to load and send the containers on their way meant they were penalised anyway. Buyers knew Australian wharves were a cot case and they never expected any government would have the will or the gumption to break the stranglehold of the unions.I could go on and on telling you how hard it was and why numbers of rural and regional people took to the politics of despair: the Pauline Hanson One Nation policies. These policies never offered solutions but articulated on their behalf the anger and frustration of a people who felt powerless and were locked into poverty traps—remote, they feared, from the understanding or attention of policy makers in the Labor government. Let me tell you that, since the Howard government came into power, there has been a refocus on the infrastructure needs, the social policy and the taxation system policy necessary to give everyone a fairer go.Consider the communications services. In my electorate alone, 42 exchanges were upgraded, and we now have virtually full mobile phone coverage. The Internet is everywhere, and it is fast and affordable. In the area of health, there is a department of rural health and a clinical school, which have brought medical and other health service students to town to train in the region, hopefully to stay. It is true that we have the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country—down to 37 per cent—which means the poor and families still have to think twice about queuing in a GP's surgery, with the signs on the walls reminding them that they need to settle the $45 to $50 consultation fee before they leave. This government has done its best to speed up Medicare rebates by providing Easyclaim facilities, but it will take more doctors in the country to bring about the competition that will make a decision not to bulk-bill harder in the future. The government is addressing the channelling of new doctors into the system, ensuring that more of them are more likely to choose rural and regional practice in the future.The Goulburn Valley Highway has now been duplicated, and the Roads to Recovery money is delivering dollars from the Commonwealth straight to local government. This money is seeing bridges rebuilt and bitumen put on roads that had not received attention for a generation, simply because there were not the dollars to go around. We are a natural resource dependent economy. Over $14 million has been delivered in Murray alone by the NHT, with the NAP about to swing in. I want to talk about my particular vision for a change in landscape and a change in catchment management for the future, a change which is being ushered in by the innovative natural resource policies of this government. In the past, primary producers have depended on food and fibre production, and in a few cases wood production, to generate the income to keep their families. On private lands, that was the case. On public lands—the national or state reserves and the parks—personnel are employed to make sure that these public lands were weed and feral animal free and to look after the natural resources.We now have another way to deliver sustainable futures for rural communities without the loss of the population. Loss of population means fewer schools, hospitals, commercial centres and retail sectors of all types. I have a vision for private land in the future to be a patchwork of food, fibre, flour or timber production and the provision of ecosystem or environmental services, determined perhaps through a tender process. We have already trialled such a system. Environmental services may include feral animal and weed control, vegetation protection, fencing, habitat protection and rehabilitation. They could also extend to built heritage protection, where buildings were of a special significance to the nation's heritage.As with the natural resource significance, the heritage significance would have to be something that the community as a whole—the nation as a whole—saw as worthy of public support. The Natural Heritage Trust funded bush tender was a 2001-02 trial of this ecosystem or environmental services alternative to traditional farming, and it has been highly successful. This bush tender called for land-holder interest in two Victorian designated areas between Bendigo and Ballarat and between Wangaratta and Wodonga. The aim was for land-holders to be paid to provide management services—ecosystems services—on their properties to improve in particular important native vegetation. Farmers were asked to establish their own price for delivering these services, and then to submit a bid based on that price. The successful bids were those which offered best value for money. The payments came from the $1.5 billion Natural Heritage Trust funding, which in turn was achieved through the partial sale of Telstra. Needless to say, these ecosystem environmental services have been extraordinarily successful, and now the trial has been extended to Gippsland, where bids from land-holders are being called for this month.This is the way we are now managing our Indigenous protected areas across the country. Aboriginal communities are delivering ecosystem or environmental services to protect their landscapes, often hugely degraded after a lot of pastoral overgrazing or feral animal and weed infestation. We support them—again, through the Natural Heritage Trust—to work as land managers according to a special business plan. They have been enormously successful. We can look to their example to extend that same process across all of Australia where, in the future, private farm managers will have numbers of options. These will include food and fibre production and also ecosystem services delivery. (Time expired)563317:42:005633Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I bring to the attention of the House the plight of approximately 1,500 East Timorese nationals who have been seeking asylum in Australia since 1993. While the people of Australia well understand why we have mandatory detention for those people arriving in an Australian migration zone without entering through a designated port of entry, fair-minded Australians have viewed with utter dismay the plight of asylum seekers, who have suffered under the Howard government's cruel policy of prolonged detention, in particular, of women and children.On this side of the House, we are acutely aware of the concern of all Australians at this government's cynical agenda on certain elements of its immigration, refugee detention and border protection policies. Specifically, every day more and more Australians are questioning the lack of justice being meted out to many persons entering Australia, legally or otherwise, who seek Australia's protection from persecution of a prescribed kind under the United Nations convention and protocol for refugees. With help from some sections of the media, the government have portrayed the Bakhtiyari case as typical of most asylum seekers. This is simply not true and the government knows it.The estimated 1,500 East Timorese asylum seekers who have waited quietly and patiently in Australia since 1993 hoping for asylum have been abandoned by the Howard government. No-one in this House can deny that, of all the people on this earth, the East Timorese deserved asylum from 1993 to the time of their vote for independence. The 1,500 East Timorese in Australia are not typical boat people seeking political asylum, as I have said. On 11 October 1995, the then shadow minister for foreign affairs and member for Mayo, the Hon. Alexander Downer, issued a media release entitled `East Timorese asylum seekers'. Mr Downer said:The claim made by Mr Paul Keating that `Timorese people have Portuguese citizenship' is wrong. Not one of the 1,300 East Timorese asylum seekers has applied for Portuguese citizenship. The fact is, Australia has never considered the people of East Timor as anything but Indonesian since 1979. This latest claim by Mr Keating that they are Portuguese is simply absurd and hypocritical.The member for Mayo repeated this attack in a further media release entitled `Senator Evans's hypocrisy over East Timorese asylum seekers', when he said:In the end, Gareth Evans's tortured logic has created a situation which is unsatisfactory to all three governments involved, to the applicants themselves and to the commonsense and fair play of Australians everywhere. The situation is that the 1,500 East Timorese asylum seekers have been denied protection by Australia since 1993—a period of nine years. I quote from a letter dated 15 May 1997, written by the then Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Edward Clancy, to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock:I noted with interest the decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia on Friday, 2 May 1997, (in the case of Jong Kim Ko v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1997] 306 FCA). It is my understanding that while the court found that the East Timorese have formal Portuguese nationality, any final decision on their status in Australia must also consider the effectiveness of this nationality.The issue is clearly whether Australia ever did owe such obligations to these estimated 1,500 East Timorese asylum seekers. It is now established by virtue of the Federal Court decision that Australia does owe such an obligation.His Eminence Cardinal Clancy has also noted social segregation; family breakdown; the practical incapacity of those East Timorese to acquire Portuguese citizenship; social disruption, including alcohol and substance abuse; and the fact that some have married into Australian families since arriving here. So the question arises: why can't these East Timorese return to East Timor, following the holding of successful peaceful elections and the elimination of the immediate threat in their new found country? Why indeed can't they stay in Australia? The answer is that the sheer length of time—nine years—that these people have been waiting in Australia has now permanently altered their lives. I am advised that many have now gone on to higher education and to job opportunities and are entrenched in life in Australia. Uprooting them would open a whole new world of disruption by returning them to a new country that is still struggling, in the aftermath of the devastation visited upon East Timor following the referendum for independence.These people have suffered nine years of disruption to their lives—living in Australia and waiting patiently for rights that they have never been allowed to enjoy. These rights have been denied by this government, which has sat on these applications, filed them away and done nothing with them. The immediate threat of violence has largely passed. Technically, these people can no longer claim protection under the United Nations convention and protocol for refugees. However, there is a prevailing injustice in light of the fact that this government has taken no action with these applications. The injustice most people feel is that these people have been compelled to remain in Australia so that their protection visa applications could be kept alive during the worst excesses of the violence in East Timor. In the meantime, they have sought to get on with their lives in Australia and to further themselves as best they can, always within an environment of uncertainty. Now, after nine years, these people have been compelled to return after becoming well settled in Australia and they thus face a further upheaval in their lives.This situation is, to use the member for Mayo's own word, absurd. In rectifying this absurd situation, I call upon the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs to create a new subclass of visa that will permit this finite and discrete group of applicants the right to apply for permanent residency in Australia. Finally, in light of the totality of the suffering that these people have endured, it would be proper that Australia finally recognise the legitimate and comprehensive rights of these people from East Timor to remain permanently in Australia. To offer any less is unconscionable and unjust. These applicants have been denied their natural rights and I urge the government to honour those rights now.563417:50:005634Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise to speak on an issue of critical importance to my electorate. In doing so I will quote entirely from a paper that was compiled by Murrumbidgee Irrigation and that was delivered to the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council Community Advisory Committee. The reason I will quote entirely from this document is that I think it is an exact position of what we face with respect to the issue of how we access and deliver water into the future. The paper reads as follows:The issue of environmental flows and how to deliver a healthier river system for future generations presents significant challenges. How we go about that task, and how we apportion the costs and benefits may well determine success or failure.Too often the debate about delivering healthier rivers has been conducted within a simplistic—and very destructive—framework that equates environmental benefits with taking water off irrigators (and other current users). This equation polarises the community and shifts the policy debate and policy responses into the wrong areas. For instance, at present we are guilty of elevating one activity—water recovery—to an objective (which should be river health).In reality, the Australian community, including irrigators, are being asked to consider investing in a healthier river. Such investments may include: infrastructure costs, research and development costs, the costs of ongoing management and operations of environment and other water, and the cost of reduced income from current water use. The benefits lie in improved natural assets that are available to all Australians.At the outset we should therefore refocus attention away from `water recovery' and towards the environmental objectives of the proposal and sound planning principles. Only then will more strategies and activities make sense to stakeholders. Success may then depend on our ability, as a community, to design something that has equitable sharing of costs and benefits, and that meets objectives cost effectively. It is in this context that I want to highlight the three most important issues for Murrumbidgee Irrigation.At present we are being asked to make judgments about the proposal to improve river health without the benefit of a comprehensive business plan to show that the use of resources is worthwhile and consistent with meeting objectives. Also, there is no mechanism that enables stakeholders to monitor and evaluate performance, and hold managers accountable.As a business, Murrumbidgee Irrigation is responsible for the delivery of triple bottom-line outcomes in respect of finance, environment, and society. We acknowledge the importance of environmental objectives, and we invest in environmental outcomes, but we need sound business planning to satisfy ourselves, our shareholders, and our stakeholders that the use of resources is worthwhile and consistent with meeting our objectives. More especially, an agreed business plan enables our stakeholders to monitor our performance and hold us accountable for achievement of objectives. The Company has also dealt with the planning needs associated with the recovery of environmental flows for the Murrumbidgee in 1999-2000. This requires revision of strategies and plans for marketing and managing the delivery of water for users, including: water pricing, management of flow rates, water transfer markets, investments in water saving, and the delivery of productivity gains from Company services.As a member of the Australian community, what we do not know is how the water recovered for the environment has, or will, be used to deliver the potential environmental benefits.To varying degrees, this inadequacy applies to much of our existing water management. But, the relative lack of management disciplines on environmental flows is of particular concern, if only because of the use of an adaptive approach to management.The adaptive, `learning by doing', approach for management of environmental water may be the only sensible option given the present gaps in our knowledge. That said, we do know how to prepare a management plan. Indeed, the adaptive management approach only makes sense if there are very clear social contracts for the management of environmental water, very clear measures of performance, and mechanisms for accountability of managers. Without the latter, any adaptivity afforded our resource managers comes at very high risk.The missing ingredient is a comprehensive river management plan, with ongoing planning processes. This planning system should start with water that is currently available to the environment, and have the following key elements:. Clear statements of institutional arrangements for management of water, for use and for the environment, and of the roles and responsibilities of managers.. Clear output intentions for environment water including priorities for action.. Clear strategies for use of environment water, and other inputs, to deliver outputs.. An annual `budget' for proposed environmental water activities.. Comprehensive annual monitoring of results using established principles of water accounting (or water balances).. Transparent and systematic annual reporting of performance to all stakeholders (that is subject to independent audit of performance).The comprehensive analysis of costs and benefits of returning water to the environment to be conducted by the MDBC should enable ready inclusion of study outcomes in business planning for use of environment water to deliver a healthier river.The experience of water recovery in the Murrumbidgee since 1999-2000 has been that recovery established environmental flow regimes via an average reduction in irrigator allocations of about 4 per cent of entitlement (about 50 GL per year from the MIA and Districts).The most conservative estimates of the economic impact of this water recovery, by NSW Agriculture, suggest a permanent reduction in the income of farmers by 3.3 per cent, or about $2.6 million per year, in the MIA and Districts. If we capitalise these losses at a real discount rate of 5 per cent, these farmers contributed equity of about $52 million to improved health of the Murrumbidgee. The equity investment by the MIA region - using standard multiplier effects - was approximately $208 million.All Australians are enjoying the environmental benefits - presumably valued at $210 million or more. But, they have been 100 per cent equity financed by a small section of the community - about 3,000 farmers and their economic dependents - mainly from the MIA region. Other irrigators in the Murrumbidgee Valley made similar enforced investments in water recovery.This sort of financing strategy is not consistent with the principles of efficiency or equity, and this is implicitly acknowledged by the Ministerial Council in its statement that `approaches to water recovery will maximise benefits and minimise costs to water users'.Yet, as we are about to consider a water recovery proposal for the Murray of at least 350 GL per year that may cost over $1.5 billion we are asked by the MDBC `who should pay? How should financial responsibility be shared between water users and the Australian community?' Worse still, we are asked if it is decided to retrieve water compulsorily (ie if we, as a community of beneficiaries, decide to impose all investment costs on irrigators again) what do you think about using the following mechanisms?. Reduction of entitlements without compensation;. Reduction of entitlements with compensation (compulsory acquisition of access rights);. Targeted structural adjustment (closure of `uneconomic' irrigation areas).These issues and questions imply that we are prepared to base design of the Murray River Health project on inequitable cost sharing, and wrong assumptions about responsibility. Moreover, we are signalling an intention to design the project in an adversarial and inflammatory climate. This will eventually result in the imposition of costs on all sections of the community - one way or another. Moreover, the costs are likely to be greater than they would otherwise have been. A community in conflict, with declining cultural and heritage values, will contribute to an unhealthy River Murray.10000Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question.That grievances be noted.Question agreed to.Bills5636Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill:New Business Tax System (Consolidation) Bill (No. 1) 2002Committees56365636563610000Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)—Mr Speaker has received messages from the Senate acquainting the House that:(a) Senator Colbeck has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, and(b) Senator Johnston has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.Miscellaneous563610000Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed today at 8 p.m. as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Business563618:01:005636Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPLeader of the House10—I 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.I do not wish to long detain the House on this matter but I do want to say that we have had a very good and intelligent debate thus far on this issue and we will continue to have a very good and intelligent debate on this issue. So far 56 members of the House have had an opportunity to speak in this chamber, but I understand that there are some 48 members, thus far, who still wish to speak on this very important matter. It is necessary that the debate continue in the Main Committee—not because the Main Committee is a sideshow; the Main Committee is every bit as much a part of this parliament as this chamber, but it is necessary that the rest of the debate take place in that chamber if the government's legislative program is to continue. Some of the bills which the government needs to continue with this week are the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002, which will benefit thousands of income support recipients; the Criminal Code Amendment (Espionage and Related Offences) Bill 2002, to modernise our legislation; the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 and the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002—4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—Why can't my constituents get to listen to me?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—I think the member for Banks's constituents hear far too much of the member bellowing and carrying on in question time. The states grants bill is to enable capital works development to proceed next year in government and non-government schools. The Australian people expect the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 to be taken seriously, and the government is taking the bill extremely seriously, but they also expect the government to get on with the business of governing. That is why it is very important that further debate on this bill is considered in the Main Committee. The bill will, of course, come back to this chamber for summing up, for vote and for any subsequent debate. For that reason I commend the motion I have moved to the House.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion moved by the Leader of the House is out of order. It is out of order because of the combined effect of paragraphs (3) and (4) of the motion that he has moved. Paragraph (3) says: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 ... That does not specify, as the standing orders do, one member of the opposition. Secondly, paragraph (4) says:The Main Committee continuing debate on the Bill regardless of any unresolved questions.The combined effect takes away the fundamental basis on which this House established the Main Committee, which was that one dissenting voice in the Main Committee could send a matter back here. That cannot be done by way of motion as the Leader of the House has moved; it can only be done by the House substantively deciding to change the standing orders to therefore change the basis on which the Main Committee is constituted. The whole basis of the Main Committee is that it is to deal with non-contentious matters—that is why one voice can send it back. So the motion moved by the Leader of the House is out of order.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: the motion that I have put to the House is in exactly the same terms as the motion that was put to the House to move the euthanasia debate from this chamber into the Main Committee, so there is a perfectly good precedent for this. The point of order should be ruled out of order.10000Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)—Order! I have been advised that the motion as it stands is in order. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on another point of order. The Leader of the House has indicated that this motion is in precisely the same terms as the motion which referred the euthanasia legislation to the Main Committee some time ago. On that basis, I have another point of order which is predicated on the basis of standing order 79, which says that the House will not permit quarrels. Standing order 79 says:The House will interfere to prevent the prosecution of any quarrel between Members arising out of debates or proceedings of the House or of any committee thereof.House of Representatives Practice at page 513 indicates that that particular standing order has been invoked only on one occasion by the House, and that was by a deputy speaker in 1982. That arose as a consequence of a debate which started with the then Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, being described as `a cornered rat'. In the course of that debate, on 20 October 1982, Deputy Speaker Mr Miller, at page 2318 of the House of Representatives' Hansard, interceded under standing order 79 to prevent the prosecution of a quarrel.By his own admission, the Leader of the House has said that this is in precisely the same terms as the euthanasia legislation. When the euthanasia legislation was referred in precisely the same manner under such a motion and on the basis of the House proceeding that this was a clear issue of conscience for members of the House, there was a quarrel between members. House of Representatives Practice, at page 298, in respect of the Main Committee, said:Standing orders have been suspended to permit debate on a bill to continue regardless of any unresolved questions.That was a clear reference to the euthanasia legislation. Footnote 119, in respect of that, gives the votes and proceedings in 1996, and says this:The context was the referral to the Main Committee of a bill which many Members wished to debate in the House. Subsequent proceedings in the Committee (suspended because of disorder ... ) emphasised the extent to which Main Committee operations depended on general co-operation.Even if I accept—which I do not necessarily—your previous ruling that it is open to the House to refer this motion, on the basis of the experience that we had with the euthanasia legislation, you must intervene, as a deputy speaker has on a previous occasion in a different context, pursuant to standing order 79, which says:The House will interfere to prevent the prosecution of any quarrel between Members arising out of debates or proceedings of the House or of any committee thereof. The reference by the House of this bill in this manner to the Main Committee will, of necessity, only lead to and permit a quarrel, and you must intercede now to prevent it from occurring.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—I admire the erudition of the member for Perth, and I have to say that I am impressed by the energy that he is putting into this. But the fact is that there is perfectly good precedent for what I propose the House should now do. I am happy to listen to anything that the Manager of Opposition Business would like to put, but I do think that it is time to have such debate as there should be on this matter.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Further to my point of order, the Leader of the House says that there is perfectly good precedent. There is only one precedent; standing order 79 has been used by the House on only one occasion to prevent a quarrel between members. That predated the establishment of the Main Committee. The only experience that the House has of such a motion sending a bill to the Main Committee in this manner is the euthanasia legislation, by the Leader of the House's own admission. As House of Representatives Practice attests, the sending of a bill in respect of which a conscience vote applied in this manner led to one thing only: disorder and a quarrel amongst members on a bill that was the subject of a conscience vote. On that basis, the only precedent which applies is the euthanasia legislation, which saw a quarrel occurring as a necessary consequence of the House referring the euthanasia bill to the Main Committee in a way which took away the fundamental basis on which the Main Committee was established. You must intercede. That is the only precedent we have.10000Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)—I hear what you say. I have ruled that the motion is in order.Dissent from Ruling563818:11:005638Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I move:That the Deputy Speaker's ruling be dissented from.10000Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)—Is the motion seconded?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I second the motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The motion has to be in writing. As the motion has now been received in writing, I put the question—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I propose to speak to the motion.Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (6.12 p.m.)—I move:That the question be now put.Question put.18:16:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.63Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Katter, R.C.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Vamvakinou, M.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.Question put:That the motion (Mr Stephen Smith's) be agreed to.18:25:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 63Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Katter, R.C.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Vamvakinou, M.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Question negatived.18:31:005640Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Speaker—Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (6.31 p.m.)—I move:That the question be now put.Question put.18:33:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 76Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.63Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Katter, R.C.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Vamvakinou, M.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—That may well be, but I cannot recognise the member for Fraser, as he is aware.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Abbott's) be agreed to.18:40:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 76Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.63Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Katter, R.C.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Vamvakinou, M.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is now 12 minutes into the dinner adjournment. I realise that House of Representatives Practice says that the chair has:... some discretion as to the precise timing of the start of these suspensions ...It also says:... (to accommodate Members who, for example, may be able to complete a speech shortly after 6.30 or who do not wish to be called to start a speech just before 6.30).We have all seen examples of that—finishing at 6.29 p.m. and at 6.32 p.m.—and we have all recognised and respected the discretion of those in the chair about that. But we are in an extraordinarily different situation now, where motions are being moved that were not before the chair at 6.30 p.m. and where votes are being taken that were not under way at 6.30 p.m. We are I think changing fundamentally this—Government members interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I did not write the standing orders nor did I write House of Representatives Practice, but I think we ought to operate under them.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser would do well not to reflect on the chair.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I was not; I was responding to the interjections, Mr Speaker. I want to draw to your attention that it is inappropriate to continue to permit motions to be moved, speeches to be initiated and the gag to be moved—and we would go on and on—when we are so far into the scheduled adjournment. This is a matter that can be dealt with at 8 o'clock; it is not a matter of national emergency and urgency. The proper processes of this parliament ought to operate in such a manner that you should now adjourn the House. I put it to you that it should be adjourned at this moment and that we should resume this debate at 8 o'clock.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will respond to the member for Fraser by pointing out that what has happened this evening is not extraordinary. There was a motion of dissent from a ruling made by the chair. That motion was dealt with and that then cleared the way, I thought, to clarify what would happen at 8 o'clock, which was the reason that the motion to suspend standing orders was put. I have no intention of delaying the House any longer. It is not my intention to adjourn the House, the member for Fraser may be relieved to know, but it is my intention to suspend the sitting and to indicate that the chair will be resumed at 8 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6.44 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills5642R14755642Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Williams:That this bill be now read a second time.20:00:005642Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Code Amendment (Espionage and Related Offences) Bill 2002 because of the great importance of national security and defence for Australia. In this changing world, Australia needs to be alert to the fact that our security and defence can be compromised and, unless we take steps to prevent this occurring, this will be an ongoing position. This bill will ensure there are processes in place to deter people from passing on classified information belonging to Australia. Due to advances in modern technology that allow us to communicate with people around the globe, thereby making the accessing and passing on of highly classified information more difficult to trace, we are now living in a smaller world than our parents and grandparents did. One of our roles as a government is to keep abreast of these changes, ensuring that they are reflected in legislation and that we remain one step ahead of those people who would choose to threaten our security.Australia has a long and proud history of strong defence and security. This bill enables Australia to continue that history by ensuring that our legislation keeps pace with the rest of the world and with the criminals who seek to threaten the security and defence of our country. The main effect of the bill is to establish new offences dealing with the protection of security and defence under the Criminal Code Act 1995, strengthening Australia's espionage laws in a number of ways. This legislation is aimed at protecting Australian national security. The amendments contained in the bill make it clear that the espionage offences are designed to capture actions that genuinely prejudice or threaten the security and defence of Australia or any country we share sensitive information with.The coalition government undertook a review of Australian espionage laws after the 1999 arrest in the United States of a former Defence Intelligence Organisation officer and Australian citizen for attempted espionage. He was arrested and charged with a number of offences, including the unauthorised disclosure of United States intelligence material. This incident affirmed the government's commitment to tightening Australia's security, and a review of security procedures was commissioned. This legislation has evolved as a result of the review which was carried out by Bill Blick in 2000.The incident in the United States and the review by Mr Blick highlighted the need for Australia to strengthen its espionage laws and impose tougher penalties on those who break such laws. The changes to the legislation, which will increase the maximum imprisonment penalty, will send a clear message that Australia will not tolerate any compromise of our national security. Australia's national security is of the utmost importance, and this government will not tolerate Australian interests being compromised, either here or abroad. As a government, we need to ensure that there are systems and laws in place to protect information used by Australian personnel serving overseas, whether as part of the defence forces or as embassy staff. We need to establish an effective legal framework that both deters people who intend to betray Australia's security interests and punishes them if they carry out that intention.By referring to conduct that may prejudice Australia's security and defence, rather than its safety and defence, Australia's espionage laws will be strengthened in a number of ways. The change to the terminology reflects the modern intelligence environment. The term `security' is intended to catch information about the operations, capabilities and technologies, methods and sources of Australian intelligence and security agencies; the term `safety' is unlikely to include such information. Identifying a person committing an act of espionage is often an impossible task, without good resources and the latest technology. By amending the current legislation, we can ensure staff within our security agencies can keep ahead of criminals and be properly equipped to identify and target those choosing to commit espionage and threaten Australia's domestic security.The government is committed to protecting national security and to stopping those who threaten Australia's interests. In the government's 2002-03 budget, announced in May, we outlined measures to upgrade our domestic security, secure our borders and strengthen our defence forces. This government announced the largest and most comprehensive upgrade of our defence capabilities made by any Australian government in more than 25 years. Under the plan set out in the white paper, an additional $1 billion was included in the 2002-03 Defence budget. We also added to that program to fund the deployment of Australian troops in the war against terrorism. The events of September 11 made us realise that our domestic security can be threatened. Our responsibility as a government is to defend our citizens and our national security interests. The 2002-03 budget allocated an additional $1.3 billion over five years to upgrade security within Australia. The budget provided an extra $539 million to the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Protective Service and Australian intelligence agencies, to assist them in identifying potential security threats. There will be enhanced cooperation with overseas law enforcement agencies and improvements in screening arriving and departing international passengers. The government will also be improving the secure communication system of the Department of Defence and taking measures to protect our critical information infrastructure from attack.The main effect of the bill is to establish new offences dealing with the protection of security and defence. The legislation states that a person's action must result in, or be likely to result in, the information being disclosed to another country or to a foreign organisation or to a person acting on behalf of such a country or organisation. The type of activity that may constitute espionage has been expanded to move into line with espionage activity. This means a person may be guilty of an espionage offence if they disclose information concerning Australia's security or defence, intending to prejudice the Commonwealth's security or defence. An individual could also be guilty of an offence if they disclose information concerning the Commonwealth's security or defence, without authorisation, to advantage the security or defence of another country. Amendments included in the legislation will also protect foreign sourced information belonging to Australia. This means information held at Australian embassies throughout the world is protected by this legislation, ensuring Australian interests are protected outside our borders.The legislation sets out four espionage offences. The maximum penalty for each type of espionage offence is 25 years imprisonment. All four offences relate to the unlawful use or disclosure of information concerning the Commonwealth's security or defence, or information concerning the security of another country that has been or is in the possession or control of Australia. These provisions provide protection to information generated by Australia as well as information generated by other countries that is in Australia's possession or control. The offence applies whether or not the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs in Australia and whether or not a result of the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs here. This means the espionage offences provisions in this bill will potentially apply to all possible circumstances within and outside Australia where espionage might threaten Australian interests. The bill also outlines and covers initiation of prosecutions, holding hearings in camera and forfeiture of articles. Safeguards will apply in the legislation to ensure that legitimate transfers of information can continue, including information passed on to journalists in the interests of the public. Concerns were raised in the media that this legislation would seek to prevent public discussion. This is not true. This government welcomes public discussion, and this legislation has been introduced to protect Australian security interests, domestically and internationally. The legislation is not aimed at hampering or stopping public discussion, and communications to journalists are not considered an offence, unless they themselves are spies.One of the issues addressed by the amendments is that of penalties for espionage offences. The penalties currently in place are inadequate when dealing with national security crimes. Compared to penalties for other serious crimes like people-smuggling and drug trafficking, those for espionage crimes, which threaten each citizen of Australia, are grossly inadequate. This is what the legislation aims to address. An act of espionage has the potential to place the lives of individuals and the security of the nation in jeopardy. A threat to or breach of domestic security strikes fear into the heart of every Australian. Through this legislation we aim to protect the citizens of Australia and ensure those given the responsibility of protecting our national security interests are fully equipped to do so, with adequate laws in place.This bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to increase the maximum penalty for the most serious cases of espionage from seven years to 25 years imprisonment. This government considers seven years imprisonment to be a grossly inadequate punishment for the more serious acts of espionage during peace. The proposed offences are consistent with equivalent provisions in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. The bill also provides that bail decisions for those charged with espionage offences should only be made by Supreme Court judges. In moving into line with other developed countries and their penalties for these offences, Australia is working towards creating a unified stand, informing criminals that we will not tolerate threats to domestic and international security.In preparing this bill the government have considered technological advances in information management and communications, as well as international standards, ensuring the legislation reflects the advances in technology and acknowledging the role it plays in the crime of espionage. By enacting this legislation Australia can offer greater assurances to our information exchange partners that, when they provide information to us in confidence, we will protect that information in the same way that we protect our own sensitive information. Penalties in comparable countries for equivalent offences range from the death penalty in the United States to 14 years imprisonment in the UK, Canada and New Zealand. The espionage offences included under the act are not intended to capture situations where information is communicated as part of an authorised information exchange arrangement between Australia and our allies.The bill will also further support the process of bringing cases of espionage to trial. In the interests of national security, the presiding judge in a case involving an individual charged with espionage offences retains the discretion to decide whether court proceedings remain open or are closed in the interests of Australia's security or defence. This is aimed at protecting Australian security interests at all times.After events such as September 11, which forced Australia and many nations around the world to look closer at domestic security and defence, we as a nation need to be alert at all times to the potential risks that exist should security information be sold and fall into the wrong hands. This government cannot afford to be complacent, and we certainly are not doing so. We can no longer believe that, simply because we are located away from the world's hotspots and have not yet been a target, we can escape the very real threats of espionage. This legislation recognises the need for Australia to remain abreast of changes in world security and the threats which exist for all countries.Debate often rages about so many important issues in our society—health, education, trade, international relations—but what of security and defence? I happen to believe that security and defence are among the most important issues for all Australians. Since September 11, security and defence have become important issues, not only for the United States but for Australia, for this government and for the rest of the developed world. Australia has not been physically threatened since World War II; as a government and a nation, we need to ensure this good record continues. Highly sensitive government information falling into the wrong hands is a frightening thought, but it is something we must all think about and something we must endeavour to protect against. I commend the minister for this bill and I commend the bill to the House, in the interests of Australia's future.20:14:005645Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I would like to thank those members who have participated in the debate on the Criminal Code Amendment (Espionage and Related Offences) Bill 2002. There are a number—the members for Banks, Cook, Watson, Moncrieff, Sydney, Curtin, New England, Corangamite and Lingiari, and ultimately I particularly thank the member for Riverina for her considered contribution. Members of the opposition raised a number of issues in this debate that had nothing to do with the bill before the House. Of course that has never been done before! I can only assume that these issues were raised in the absence of any objection to the bill itself. Indeed, I am pleased that all members of the opposition who spoke on the bill expressed their endorsement of it, but I do wish to respond to a number of the points raised. The members for Banks, Watson and Lingiari expressed concerns about the agreement between Australia and the United States of America concerning security measures for the reciprocal protection of classified information. This is an agreement signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Ambassador Schieffer on 25 June this year. The members opposite claimed that the implication of the agreement was that it would hinder the access of elected representatives to classified information or that elected representatives would need to be subjected to a personal security clearance. This is simply not the case. The agreement will not in any way prejudice the existing procedures for access to classified information by parliamentary representatives. The issue was specifically considered at the time of the signing of the agreement. The continuation of the current practice in relation to parliamentary representatives was expressly confirmed in an exchange of letters signed by both parties at the same time as the treaty. The letter relevantly stated:In respect of the requirement for security clearances in the agreement, the parties acknowledge the special status of elected representatives at the federal level and confirm their intention to continue to apply their current practices to them.Information as to this exchange of letters was readily obtainable from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I would invite the members opposite to do their homework before wasting time on spurious issues that have nothing to do with the bill. The new agreement merely updates, simplifies and strengthens a framework for the bilateral exchange of classified information which has been in place and has worked well since 1962. It does not change domestic law or policy.I also note that this particular agreement is scheduled to be tabled in parliament on 27 August—tomorrow—and will be reviewed by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties before any action is taken to bring it into force. A national interest analysis summarising the agreement will be circulated when the agreement is tabled. I might remind the member for Banks that it was the Howard government that introduced the JSCOT, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, as part of the Howard government's landmark reforms of Australia's treaty making processes in May 1996. The result of those reforms is a more transparent process which gives Australians unparalleled input and an opportunity to understand the work of governments in making new international laws.The Criminal Code Amendment (Espionage and Related Offences) Bill 2002 establishes an effective legal framework to both deter and punish people who intend to betray Australia's security interests. As a result of this bill, we will have one of the tightest, strongest pieces of legislation to protect sensitive information among our information exchange partners. The end of the Cold War did not herald the end of espionage. In fact, the rapid development in technology and the increased connection between nations mean that information warfare is a boom industry. There remain an extraordinary number of people and organisations who seek to trade in information, particularly sensitive security and defence information, and unfortunately there are weak people who are prepared to betray Australia's interests and compromise Australia's security by selling sensitive information with which they have been entrusted.This bill will strengthen Australia's espionage laws in a number of ways. The type of activity that may constitute espionage has been expanded. A person may be guilty of an espionage offence if he or she discloses information concerning the Commonwealth's security or defence, intending to prejudice the Commonwealth's security or defence. A person may also be guilty of an offence if he or she discloses information concerning the Commonwealth's security or defence without authorisation, to advantage the security or defence of another country. Security or defence is defined in the bill so as to afford protection to a range of material that may not be protected under current laws. In particular, the term will include the operations, capabilities and technologies of and methods and sources used by our intelligence and security agencies.Importantly, the new offences will also protect foreign sourced information belonging to Australia. As a result, we can offer greater assurances to our information exchange partners that, when they provide information to us in confidence, we will protect that information in the same way that we protect our own sensitive information. A person who compromises foreign information in our possession will face the same penalty as a person who compromises Australian generated information. That penalty will reflect the seriousness of the offence. As a result of this bill, the maximum penalty for a person convicted of espionage will be 25 years imprisonment.In addition to strengthening the offence provisions, the bill includes provisions that further support the process of bringing cases of espionage to trial. The most important measure in this regard is to guarantee that only a judge of a state or territory supreme court will decide the question of bail. In addition, I am advised that the Australian Federal Police Commissioner intends to issue an order to all members of the AFP that, as a general policy, bail should be opposed in espionage cases. This will ensure that, wherever possible, those alleged to have committed espionage will not be able to escape the law.The government amendments to the bill respond to recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. On introduction, the government referred the bill to the committee for inquiry and report before progressing to the Senate. The committee made five recommendations, including that the bill progress, subject to the other four recommendations. The government has accepted and given effect to the Senate committee's recommendations in the amendments. I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight on another issue that has been raised during public and parliamentary scrutiny of the bill. When I originally introduced the bill into the House on 27 September 2001, the bill contained provisions dealing with official secrets. It was not debated and lapsed when the parliament dissolved for the November 2001 federal election. When I introduced the bill into the House again on 13 March 2002, the official secrets provisions were not included in the bill. The official secrets provisions were designed to replicate existing provisions in the Crimes Act in more modern language, consistent with the Criminal Code. Those provisions were the focus of considerable media attention and were the subject of a considered misinformation campaign. The media suggested that the provisions were designed to limit the freedom of the press and would have prevented the reporting of government activities. The media scare campaign suggested that the government was conspiring to plug leaks. This campaign was alluded to by the member for Banks and these misguided claims were repeated by the member for Watson during debate.I want to put the government's position on the record. The government's view, which is backed up by our legal advice, is that there is, in substance, no difference between the existing provisions in the Crimes Act and those that were intended to replace them in the Criminal Code. Despite this, to avoid delay in achieving the primary purpose of the bill—to strengthen Australia's espionage laws—the government decided to excise these provisions from the bill. The government did so not out of any concession that there was any substance to the misinformed claims. On the contrary, the government did so because the government did not want to hold up passage of this important legislation. We decided that, for the time being, the existing Crimes Act provisions will stand in their current form.The government is committed to protecting Australia's national security and punishing those who threaten Australia's interests. That is the purpose of the bill. It is not aimed at hampering or preventing public discussion. This is important legislation which will assist in providing a safe framework for the exchange of sensitive information and will ensure that we have strong laws to punish those who seek to betray Australia's interests. The government is committed to protecting Australia's national security and punishing those who threaten Australia's interests. The bill delivers on that commitment. I commend the bill to the House.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.5648Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:25:005648Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (Espionage and Related Offences) Bill 2002 and move:(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 7), omit “Offences”, substitute “Matters”.(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), after “items”, insert “1A,”.(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 7), before item 1, insert:1A Part VII (heading)Repeal the heading, substitute:Part VII—Official secrets and unlawful soundings(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 12), omit “83,”(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 17), omit “integrity and”.(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (lines 16 and 17), omit “is, or has been, in the possession or control of”, substitute “the person acquired (whether directly or indirectly) from”.(7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (line 21), omit “disclosed”, substitute “communicated or made available”.(8) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (lines 30 and 31), omit “is, or has been, in the possession or control of”, substitute “the person acquired (whether directly or indirectly) from”.(9) Schedule 1, item 5, page 7 (line 4), omit “disclosed”, substitute “communicated or made available”.(10) Schedule 1, item 5, page 7 (lines 13 and 14), omit “is, or has been, in the possession or control of”, substitute “the person acquired (whether directly or indirectly) from”.(11) Schedule 1, item 5, page 7 (lines 27 and 28), omit “is, or has been, in the possession or control of”, substitute “the person acquired (whether directly or indirectly) from”.(12) Schedule 1, item 5, page 8 (after line 12), at the end of Division 91, add:91.2 Defence—information lawfully available (1) It is a defence to a prosecution of an offence against subsection 91.1(1) or (2) that the information the person communicates or makes available is information that has already been communicated or made available to the public with the authority of the Commonwealth. (2) It is a defence to a prosecution of an offence against subsection 91.1(3) or (4) that the record of information the person makes, obtains or copies is a record of information that has already been communicated or made available to the public with the authority of the Commonwealth.Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsections (1) and (2). See subsection 13.3(3).(13) Schedule 1, item 5, page 8 (line 13) to page 9 (line 17), omit Division 92.(14) Schedule 2, item 3, page 11 (line 17), omit “or 92.1”.These amendments, as I said earlier, respond to the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. They achieve the government's objective of strengthening Australia's espionage laws. The bill and these amendments tightly focus on the government's objective—strengthening Australia's espionage laws—to deter and, if necessary, punish spies. Amendments (1), (3) and (5) are presentational amendments that amend headings in the Crimes Act and in the new part of the Criminal Code to be created by this bill to better reflect the contents of their respective parts. Amendment (2) ensures that the new item 1A, which amends the heading to part VII of the Crimes Act to refer to `official secrets and unlawful soundings', commences at the same time as the other amendments—on the 28th day after royal assent. The committee recommended that division 92 of the bill—offences relating to soundings—be deleted. The consequence of this would be that the unlawful soundings provisions in section 83 of the Crimes Act would remain as is. Therefore, adopting this aspect of the committee's recommendation would have no adverse practical implications. The committee also recommended that the current soundings provisions in section 83 of the Crimes Act be repealed. The soundings provision is relevant to the work of the Department of Defence which say that a soundings-type provision is necessary for commercial and security reasons. I understand that there are significant security, safety and defence risks associated with soundings being unlawfully communicated to any person outside the Commonwealth, particularly where, as a consequence of the communication, the Commonwealth does not exclusively retain the best possible information about the hydrographic characteristics of its territorial waters. For this reason, all records of unlawful soundings are forfeited to the Commonwealth. Defence, with the assistance of the Australian Government Solicitor and my department, is currently working to identify more appropriate vehicles for the soundings-type provision, possibly in sea navigation legislation. It would be premature to repeal the existing soundings provision until such time as that work is completed. If the provision were repealed before alternative legislative proposals were in place, a gap would exist. The comments relating to unlawful soundings relate to amendments (4), (13) and (14).The purpose of amendments (6), (8), (10) and (11) is to protect foreign sourced information that is or has been in the possession or control of the Commonwealth. The provisions provide that the information being compromised should actually have been in the possession of the Commonwealth. By making it an element of the offence that the information is acquired directly or indirectly from the Commonwealth, it is implicit that information must be or have been in the possession or control of the Commonwealth. The fact that the information was obtained directly or indirectly from the Commonwealth is a circumstance of the offence. Therefore, under the general principles set out in the Criminal Code Act, where no fault element is specified, the fault element is recklessness. This means that a person need only be reckless as to the information acquired directly or indirectly from the Commonwealth.Amendments (7) and (9) replace references to the word `disclosed' with `communicated or made available'. These amendments address an unintended consequence identified by the Senate committee of the use of the word `disclose'. That consequence is that a person who communicates or makes available information to a foreign country with the intention of prejudicing the security or defence of the Commonwealth may not be liable for prosecution where that information is already known to the foreign country. An example cited in the Senate committee report is where Australia has already shared the information with an ally as part of an information exchange agreement, but the person disclosing the information is unaware of this. This is a consequence we would certainly seek to avoid. Accordingly, the amendments we are moving close that gap.We have created the tightest possible espionage offence provisions so as to protect classified and other sensitive, security or defence information that is disclosed without the authority of the Commonwealth. A person who passes a copy of the unclassified ASIO annual report, available on the ASIO web site, is not committing espionage. To make this clear, we have included in item 12 a defence based on the United Kingdom Official Secrets Act 1989. (Extension of time granted) The United Kingdom legislation creates an offence of making a certain damaging disclosure of information where that information has come into the person's possession as a result of a disclosure that was not authorised by the state or the relevant organisation. The defence is available only to people who communicate information in the public domain where that information is in the public domain with the authority of the Commonwealth. So a person cannot rely on the defence where they communicate information that, unknown to the Commonwealth, has already been disclosed without the authority of the Commonwealth. I commend the amendments to the House.Question agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.5650Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney—Attorney-General) (8.31 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills5650R1576BillsR15215650Debate resumed from 20 June, on motion by Mrs Vale:That this bill be now read a second time.20:32:005650Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—In dealing with the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 tonight, we recognise that both bills contain measures of a drafting nature, rectifying oversights in drafting from previous legislation, including some discrepancies which have arisen through imperfect interaction with the Social Security Act. Most of these drafting changes, while necessary, are not controversial. For that reason, we have no problem in dealing with these on a cognate basis. One such clean-up of note within the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 removes an accidental anomaly concerning different offsetting arrangements between two parts of the Veterans' Entitlements Act where widows are affected. This was unintended and the correction is therefore beneficial. Within the same bill is a provision which relates to a mechanism to be inserted into the Veterans' Entitlements Act allowing for easier incorporation of non-legislative documents or other statutory instruments into statutory instruments governing the operation of some benefit schemes. While a concern with this issue will be articulated by the shadow minister in another place in due course, I simply note that this concern does need to be put on the record, though it is not sufficient at this stage to cause us to withdraw our support for the bill.With respect to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002, there is only one key issue of note, and that is the amendment which provides for the indexation of the income supplement of war widows. We support that move without hesitation, though I put on the record our strong objection to the snide, cheap remark of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that the freezing of war widows' social security benefits in 1986 was a Labor Party act of meanness. It was nothing of the kind, as the minister well knows. It was no more than an adjustment which should have been realised many years before when it became clear that, inevitably, war widows would become eligible for a range of other benefits which was never intended and that there was a degree of doubling up in the payment of pensions, which should have been foreseen but was not. I will not dwell on this now except to say that we firmly believe that support given to war widows, when compared with the age pension counterpart, is now appropriate.In addition to the war widows pension being indexed by MTAWE—male total average weekly earnings—and non-means tested, we believe that the income support supplement, ISS, at $125 per fortnight, indexed by MTAWE is also reasonable. As we all admitted, it could be more generous but at this stage, when most of the widows are of retirement age, it is reasonable. We therefore support this provision. It is inevitable and no doubt will be welcomed by widows, as it prevents any further erosion of their combined benefit. That does not mean, however, that we are content with all the details surrounding support for widows, because there are some areas of neglect which will be dealt with in some detail in the debate in the other place. There are of course other issues which I raised in the House as recently as last Monday, and I can assure the House that we will continue to raise these issues until they are addressed.I want to compliment Senator Mark Bishop, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, for his work on exposing the government's attitude to holders of the gold card. As we know, the gold card entitles holders to health care to cover all conditions. This includes treatment as a private patient in a public or private hospital. The government, however, has failed to remunerate at a reasonable rate doctors treating gold card holders. The result is that the gold card is no longer the guarantee to the level of health cover or care that it used to be and to which these veterans and, for instance, war widows are justly entitled. Senator Mark Bishop has rightly highlighted these concerns. It was very interesting to see the minister's office, as late as a week ago, denying them; yet I see the issue was pretty well aired on the ABC this morning. The government has been big on trumpeting the extension of the gold card to the veteran community. Its challenge now is to ensure that the extension of the gold card is not negated by the government allowing it to be devalued as a means of ensuring the quality health and related care for our veteran community.Another area of concern for me relates to veterans' access to Hollywood hospital, in Western Australia. Hollywood hospital is a private hospital run by the Ramsay group. I say at the outset that I have a high level of regard for the quality of health care at Hollywood generally. I am, however, concerned at the number of veterans who are being turned away from Hollywood and pushed off into other areas of the public health system. I am aware of several occasions when this has recently occurred, and it has impacted on both city and country veterans seeking treatment in Perth.My office had a call a couple of weeks ago from some constituents who were very concerned about their mother. Those concerns were taken up by my office and were fixed. Having just returned from a parliamentary trip to visit our troops in Afghanistan, I was pleased to receive a note from the family. It said:Dear Mr EdwardsJust a note to say thank you to the staff in your office for the work they did in securing a bed for our mother ... who is a gold card recipient in Hollywood Private Hospital. She was admitted to Royal Perth last Thursday at 4.30 through the emergency department after being told no beds were available at Hollywood. At 1.30 the next day she was still sitting in a chair in the “transit lounge”. After a phone call to your office and speaking to Rick Giblett, a bed was found at Hollywood.That is one example. I am aware of lots of others, including one from a fellow in Exmouth, north of Perth, who contacted me because he was quite offended at the lack of treatment that he received. It is less than two years ago that I raised in this House the issue of a young Vietnam veteran who had some problems in getting into Hollywood hospital. He was sent off to another hospital in an inappropriate way. The next day, he was admitted to Hollywood but discharged himself and, very sadly, took his own life. Those people who were looking after him had a view that the treatment that he got impacted to some degree on his decision to take his own life. I know there are a number of people in Perth who are concerned about this issue. One of them is Blue Ryan, the National President of the T&PI Association. Blue Ryan is absolutely—150 per cent—dedicated to the members of that association. He has raised some concerns. Unfortunately, instead of addressing some of those concerns, there are some people who have taken to denigrating Blue around the place. It is not the way to deal with the issue. There are some problems there and they should be addressed. As a result of the letter and the approaches that have been made to my office, I will be asking the minister's office for a briefing so that I know exactly what has happened in relation to the particular constituent issue that I raised. Generally I have a very high regard for the level of treatment within Hollywood. The problem is this: if you cannot get in there, how can you access it? Our veterans are entitled to that good level of health care, and they should not be shunted around, for whatever reason that is occurring.The other issue that I want to turn to once again is this issue of the rewrite of the Military Compensation Scheme. I have a press release here, dated 11 June 1997. It quotes then Minister Bishop:Mrs Bishop announced that work will proceed on developing the single, self-contained military compensation scheme for peacetime service which covers only military personnel. This will be considered by Cabinet by the 30th of June next year.That was 1997, and we are still waiting. When I was given responsibility by the ALP side for the rewrite of this Military Compensation Scheme, I wrote to the minister involved and reiterated a commitment that was given by the Labor Party some years ago—that we would adopt a bipartisan approach to this rewrite because an immense amount of work has had to go into it. But I did say that ultimately the bipartisan support will be dependent upon the detail of that new piece of legislation, and it will be dependent upon the support of the ex-service organisations that are being consulted as a part of that rewrite. Those ex-service organisations, including the RSL, the Vietnam Veterans Association, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and others, have a very important role to play because it is their responsibility, based on their experiences as ex-servicemen and women, to ensure that the new Military Compensation Scheme will look after current soldiers—those serving today—and those who will come in the future.I must say that I am very pleased at the way that the ex-service community have really knuckled down to the task. If the government thought that the ex-service organisations were going to be some sort of a pushover, they were very wrong, because the people who are serving as part of that consultative group are very conscientious indeed. I recently had a letter from the Vietnam Veterans Federation relating to the new Military Compensation Scheme. I will quote from their letter, which is headed `The new military compensation scheme':More is required of members of the Armed Forces than any other public service. Soldiers, sailors and aviators give up a great deal of liberty for the needs of a service which is ready to face Australia's enemies. A new Military Compensation scheme is needed to cover its unique demands and its dangers. To their credit, the government has taken on the task of developing such a Military Compensation scheme. The government's idea is to base the new scheme on the `workers compensation' model. In fact, the Department of Defence was well down the track of developing the new scheme when it became clear that its `lean, mean' workers compensation model ran foul of the principles of the long established and tested Repatriation compensation system covering Australia's war veterans.I am reliably informed that the Department of Defence resisted having to incorporate these long established principles into its scheme and has been made to reconsider its position only by some strong and persistent objections from a thankfully vigilant war veteran community. I understand that there may still be some resistance in the corridors of Defence. As far as I am concerned, this resistance to incorporating the best of the way we have looked after war veterans in the past into the new Military Compensation scheme must cease. Amongst those matters of importance which have been resisted by Defence are:Establishment of separate streams involving different nomenclature and additional benefits for those with war service. The establishment of a category of totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) for those rendered unemployable by war service.Recognition of and compensation for lost careers.Acceptance that a soldier, sailor or aviator injured in battle to the point of unemployability should not be humiliated by an inability to provide decently for his family. It is unacceptable that his children should be deprived because their father was disabled whilst fighting Australia's enemies. Acceptance that soldiers, sailors and aviators, whose ability to earn a living has been destroyed whilst fighting Australia's wars, deserves a standard of living at least that of the average Australian family.They go on to say:Rights enjoyed by war veterans in the compensation appeals system are also under threat from a reluctant Defence Department. The right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with legal representation provided by Legal Aid is much valued and much appreciated by war veterans. This enthusiasm is not shared, it appears, by some of those tasked with developing the new Military Compensation Scheme. As far as I am concerned, this valued right enjoyed by war veterans must not be abolished.And in developing the new Military Compensation system, the Department of Defence should look again at the appeals system for servicemen and women with only peace-time service. Just as the armed forces demands more from its members, so it has more responsibility for those members' welfare. The quid pro quo for obedience up is responsibility down. It is distressing, therefore, to see young, inexperienced, impecunious soldiers, sailors and aviators, thrown, unassisted into the legal maze of the Military Compensation appeals system. The armed forces should, at least, assist members to prepare their cases. That is signed by Tim McCoombe and Graham Walker, two very well-known advocates for veterans in Australia. I value their opinion and I hope that the government consultative group that is looking at this new MCRS will value their opinion as well.I now turn to the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia and some of the things they have said in relation to this rewrite of the Military Compensation Scheme. I raised last Monday, during the grievance debate, the fact that the younger veterans group has been excluded from this consultative process. I asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs whether she would look at putting the Gulf War Veterans Association, peacekeepers and peacemakers on to this consultative committee, because at some stage they will have a right and will want to have a say. I would have thought that it would have been better to pull them into the consultative group now and give them the opportunity to have their say and be a part of any new rewrite. But that has not happened yet.In one of their many contributions, the Vietnam Veterans Association have said:Employment within the Australian Defence Force (ADF) requires that the individual undertake training for war, peacemaking and peacekeeping. The inherent dangers of such training set the members of the ADF apart from all civilian occupations.That seems to be something that the Defence department does not really accept at this stage, but I know that many within the Department of Veterans' Affairs do. I hope that the Veterans' Affairs hierarchy is trying to argue with Defence over the current impasse to ensure that some of the benefits that these ex-service organisations are talking about are written into the new Military Compensation Scheme. The Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia argue:The VVAA notes with some concern that there is a mind-set within Defence that:this is workers' compensation legislation based on the premise that the burden of proof is on the claimant;all are treated the same under the Act; andonly those who see active service against an enemy will have a lower standard of proof.The Defence argument is that the number of truly totally impaired personnel in the future is likely to be small. It gives no credence to the fact that a predictable proportion of soldiers returning from war are physically and mentally incapacitated to the extent that they could never hold down a job. There is considerable evidence that the proportion of soldiers suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, for example, is exactly the same for peacekeeping as it is for fighting a war.Defence concludes that the classification of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated (TPI) will not exist in the new scheme where arrangements are designed to support each individual on the basis of their level of impairment and their needs.The document is fairly detailed and well researched. I congratulate Barry Billings and others who have worked on that for their contribution. In their submission, under the heading `Conclusion', they state:It is mooted in some quarters that the veteran's entitlement and compensation scheme should be brought into the 21st century.Modernisation may well be applicable to service today in the Navy, Army or Air Force, but to discard the benefits so generously given by the people of Australia to those who have seen active service against the enemy is to deny the historical and beneficial care given to those whose lives have been changed forever.A modern compensation system based on Defence service alone, denies the sacrifice and deprivations encountered by those on warlike service.The VVAA will continue to work towards reaching a conclusion which is mutually acceptable, and which will protect the interests of future veterans and Defence personnel without eroding hard-won benefits.It has been said many times that; `Australia has the Best Repatriation System' in the world that caters for the care and needs of the Veteran community. This is due to the `much amended' Veterans Entitlement Act and the will of the Australian people. We suggest that its replacement has to be `Better than Best'.That is the end of the quotes from that submission from the VVAA. I implore the minister, the government, the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to listen to these ex-service organisations and to respond to the things that they are saying. If they do not, the years of work that have gone into this rewrite will be jeopardised, because there is no way that the veteran community are going to roll over and allow the benefits that they have fought for and accumulated over many decades to be wiped off under a rewrite of a military compensation scheme which will, as I said, put currently serving veterans on a lesser level of support than those people who are already entitled under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. We are talking about those soldiers who currently are serving in places like the Gulf, Kuwait and Afghanistan. I think the very clear and strong message from the veteran community is that those soldiers, sailors and aviators are as entitled to a good compensation scheme as are any veterans who have gone before them. That is a position that I would strongly agree with.I have covered the areas that I wanted to cover. As I said, the opposition supports these bills, although there will be some further arguments in another place—when they get to the Senate. I am sure that some of the issues which I briefly touched on at the start of my speech will be teased out and dealt with in more detail by the shadow minister in that place. In conclusion, I reiterate the fact that we on this side of the House are prepared to have a bipartisan approach to this rewrite of the Military Compensation Scheme. It is a big rewrite; a lot of work has gone into it. But if the detail is not to our liking and if the ex-service organisations will not sign off on it and support it, then there is absolutely no way that the government can look to the opposition for support. We support the bills.20:56:005654Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to move suspension of standing orders.10000Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—I had already recognised the member for Curtin. Mr SWAN (Lilley) (8.56 p.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put.21:02:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 58Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Vamvakinou, M.Zahra, C.J.77Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Question negatived.21:07:005655Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker! Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have recognised the member for Curtin. We just voted to give her the call, in fact, so it seems entirely right and proper.Motion (by Mr Swan) proposed:That the member be not further heard.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—How is that? I am speaking!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I cannot entertain that motion. As the member for Lilley will be well aware, when the House has divided and negatived the motion that the member for Curtin be not further heard, she has every right to be heard. There is no possibility to move a motion that she not be heard.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The changes contained in these bills before the House this evening highlight the Howard government's commitment to improving, refining and expanding the system—Motion (by Mr Swan) proposed:That the member be not further heard.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Curtin has the call; we have just voted that the member for Curtin be given the call. It is quite unreasonable to interrupt the member for Curtin at this stage. It is early in her speech. The standing orders indicate that, a member having been given the call, they are entitled to be heard.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—Thank you, Mr Speaker.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, under what standing order do you so rule?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am happy to acquaint the member for Lilley with the standing orders. I am also comfortable with the fact that, the member having been given the call and having had less than three minutes in which to participate in the debate, it is reasonable for her to deliver her speech. The member for Curtin has the call.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, the changes contained in these bills before the House this evening highlight the Howard government's commitment to improving, refining and expanding the system— 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, further to the point of order raised by the member for Lilley, am I to understand that you are now creating a precedent—which I might welcome; I am not necessarily disputing it, but I am just trying to clarify it—that you will not allow members who have been given the call to be interrupted by anybody, minister or member, moving that they be no longer heard?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I am happy to clarify the matter for the member for Fraser. Of course, I am creating no such precedent. I must admit that I am having difficulty in this short time in finding the appropriate House of Representatives Practice reference, but I am confident that it is customary for a motion, having been agreed to by the House, not to be put again within a reasonable frame of time. I am about to seek advice on what a reasonable frame of time is, but it was painfully obvious that the member for Curtin had said nothing that warranted her being sat down. In fact, I am confident that there are incidents in House of Representatives Practice where, a motion having been put, it is not entertained by the House within a particular period of time.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could I refer you then to page 327 of House of Representatives Practice. If you have in fact ruled that the member for Curtin had not spoken, page 327 refers to a break in business and, therefore, it was quite appropriate for me to attempt to move my motion.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will refer the member for Fraser and the member for Lilley to standing order 169 without reference to House of Representatives Practice, which would take me a little longer. It was on recollection of standing order 169 that I acted. Standing order 169 says:Subject to the provisions of standing order 233, the Speaker or the Chair may, in his or her discretion, disallow any motion or amendment which is the same in substance as any question, which, during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative.It is not unreasonable for the member for Curtin to be heard, and I intend that she should be heard unless she says something that is outrageous.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—On the basis that I say nothing outrageous, I seek to continue that the changes contained in these bills—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am attempting to accommodate the member for Curtin, as she must be well aware. The member for Curtin will resume her seat.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, standing order 169 refers to matters during the same session. It clearly does not have the specificity which standing order 94, `Closure of member', does. It says:94 A motion may be made that a Member who is speaking, except a Member giving a notice of motion or formally moving the terms of a motion allowed under the standing orders, “be not further heard”, and such question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. The standing order that you have referred to is in general terms; it does not relate to that. The specifics of standing order 169—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have dealt with this matter under standing order 94. The House has resolved under standing order 94 that the member for Curtin has the right to be heard.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—The changes contained in the bills before the House this evening, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, highlight the Howard government's commitment to improving, refining and expanding the system of federal government support for Australia's defence forces. I am delighted to see so many members of the opposition in the House this evening to support the federal government's support for Australia's defence forces and veterans and their families. It is timely that these measures be introduced to the House whilst Australian men and women are on active service in Afghanistan, the Gulf, East Timor and elsewhere, for it focuses our attention, quite rightly, on our defence forces and, indeed, on veterans.Australia's defence force personnel risk life and limb regularly to advance Australia's national interest. The Australian defence forces have a further role of aiding and shielding Australian citizens. This task involves assistance to the public during times of natural or man-made disasters and civil unrest, and service in emergency situations, such as the rescue of sailors during the Sydney to Hobart yacht race several years ago. The specialist skills and training required, as well as the dangers facing defence personnel, make the armed forces unique in Australian society. The coalition government has acknowledged consistently that it is in Australia's national interest to develop technologically superior and highly trained armed forces personnel. However, in order to make certain the high standard of Australia's defence forces, it is necessary that appropriate services are provided to defence force personnel and their families during their periods of service and beyond.When our defence personnel are serving away from home, they must be sure that there will be someone or something to assist their families. The nature of military service is such that the federal government has a responsibility to provide support and care services to defence personnel and their families once they return from active service. Hence, part of that responsibility is to ensure that the families of veterans are well looked after in the event of one of our military dying or being disabled. In my electorate this is an issue of considerable interest, for not only is the Hollywood Private Hospital—to which the member for Cowan referred in his speech—located within Curtin, there are living in my electorate thousands of beneficiaries of veterans affairs pensions or payments, including disability pensioners, service pensioners and gold card holders. In fact, the net total of beneficiaries is over 4,000 and the average age of those beneficiaries is about 77 years. The federal government has over the last 5½ years recognised the contribution that these men and women make to the defence of our country, and the risks that they take. Let us not understate it: we are talking here of the defence of democracy, property and person and the cause of freedom in this country. The federal government recognises this in a variety of ways, through a comprehensive program of increases to entitlements, recognition generally and memorials. The two bills before the House involve some fairly minor legislative changes, described as housekeeping amendments. Nonetheless, the fact that these changes are being made at all demonstrates the high priority that the Howard government places on veterans' matters.The second bill, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002, is legislation designed to implement the Howard government's commitment in the 2001 federal election to remove the unfair freeze on the ceiling rate of income support supplement and service pension payable to Australian war widows and war widowers. This freeze was the result of a particularly shabby decision by the Hawke Labor government in 1986. The Hawke Labor government sought to penalise the widows and widowers of Australian servicemen and women by freezing the income support payment in 1986. The consequence of this decision was that the value of the payment would decrease over time. The Howard government has sought to partly discharge its obligations to the families of defence personnel by linking the payment to the cost of living and wages index. As such, the payment will provide more satisfactory support to Australia's war widows and end what has been a longstanding anomaly.The War Widows Guild of Australia has quite rightly campaigned to have the income support payment linked to the cost of living and wages index, and I commend the guild for its staunch advocacy of this reform and the commitment with which it has campaigned. According to Department of Veterans' Affairs statistics, there are 934 pensioners who are war widows in my electorate of Curtin, and I know that, if passed, this legislation will go quite some way to assisting these women. Also located within the electorate of Curtin is the Campbell Barracks in Swanbourne, the home of the Special Air Service Regiment. I raise with the House the fact that I met with a group of SAS spouses and partners who were seeking information on specific Commonwealth government services available to them. I was delighted to be able to inform them of a range of services and initiatives that the federal government has indeed put in place to assist the spouses and partners of SAS personnel serving overseas. (Time expired)Business565721:21:005657Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I move:That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Lilley moving that the House require the Main Committee to report immediately—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat! The member for Lilley will be aware that I cannot entertain a motion to suspend standing orders when there is other business before the House. The member for Shortland is there, and I was about to call her.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Can I ask what the other business was?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The business before the House currently is the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002, in which we are involved in the debate on the second reading. I would acquaint the member for Lilley with House of Representatives Practice page 326, where there is a heading about suspension of standing orders `Without notice as a tactical measure'. Page 327 of House of Representatives Practice says:There are, however, restrictions on the timing of such motions. In view of conflicting precedents on the question of precisely when such motions may be moved, Speaker Jenkins clarified the matter and explained the position he intended to adopt on 27 March 1984. He stated that the correct interpretation and application of the standing order required that a motion without notice to suspend standing orders could only be moved (a) when other business was before the House if the motion was relevant to the item before the House at the time or (b) when there was no business before the House, that is, between items of business. This has become the firm practice of the House.I have done the member for Lilley a disservice in that, as I had not heard his motion of suspension, I made a presumption that I ought not have made that it bore no relevance to the business currently before the House.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Can I finish my motion?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley may only entertain the motion if I have understood him in error. On the presumption that the motion to suspend standing orders does not deal with the business before the House, I will hear him at the conclusion of the business before the House.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—It does, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am now extending a certain indulgence to the member for Lilley, as he must understand, to clarify the matter.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Certainly. It does in this sense, Mr Speaker: my motion relates to events in the Main Committee which relate to an unresolved question as to confidence the Main Committee has in the chair of the Main Committee, and that relates directly to the operations of this House. As you would well remember, you and I have spoken about this, and I have been involved in this on other occasions. In that sense it does relate directly to the business in this House—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—No.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—because events in the Main Committee are not being conducted correctly. The Main Committee is a subcommittee and is subject to the standing orders of this House. We have an objection to the way in which business is being conducted in the Main Committee at this time; it reflects upon the status, standing and application of the standing orders in this main chamber of the House of Representatives.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will be aware that he is drawing, by any measure, a very long bow. Nothing in the affairs currently being considered by the Main Committee has anything to do with the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002. Bills5658R1576VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 20025658Debate resumed.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am happy to call the member for Ryan, but does the member for Shortland have a point of order? 83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall—No.21:24:005658Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—I am delighted to follow my friend and colleague the member for Curtin. I am delighted to speak in support of—Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth) (9.25 p.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put.21:29:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 57Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Vamvakinou, M.Zahra, C.J.76Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Question negatived.21:35:005659Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—I am delighted to speak in support of the government's Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Ryan will resume his seat. The member for Perth, on a point of order.21:36:005659Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 217A, I move:That the remaining stages of this bill be referred to the Main Committee for the second reading and consideration in detail stages. This is an appropriate bill to be referred to the Main Committee, unlike other bills which this government has sent to the Main Committee, trampling over people's consciences.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Perth will resume his seat.Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (9.36 p.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put.21:37:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.56Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Vamvakinou, M.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.21:45:005660Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I am seconding the motion of referral to the Main Committee.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. Let me point out to members on my left that, to refer a matter to the Main Committee, it has to be at least seven days after the first reading—which would be the case in point—and before the resumption of debate on the motion that this bill be now read a second time. The resumption of debate on the motion that this bill be now read a second time has already occurred. The next person with the call is the member for Shortland.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My understanding of the argument being put about reference to the Main Committee is that the reference passed this afternoon overrides all of those procedural rules, which is precisely what we were arguing about in the first place.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—My understanding is that the reference put this afternoon applied to the bills currently before the Main Committee, not the bills currently before the House, which is, of course, self-evident. The member for Shortland has the call.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I point out to members so anxious to offer the chair advice that, whatever they may or may not think about the fairness of the procedure, the member for Ryan's time has expired and so the call goes to the member for Shortland.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I moved, pursuant to standing order 217A, that the bill be referred to the Main Committee for the remainder of the second reading and consideration in detail stages. I was then gagged by the Leader of the House. At no point in any of that did the chair indicate to anyone that, in some manner or form, that motion was out of order. Standing order 217A makes it clear that that motion can be moved at any time. I have been gagged, the motion is entitled to be seconded, which the Manager of Opposition Business is proposing to do. That is the motion before the House.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Perth knows that he is drawing an extremely long bow and testing the patience of the chair. In fact, the motion is out of order and that is why it cannot be seconded. As I have indicated, the motion currently before the chair is that this bill be now read a second time, and the bill being dealt with is the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002.21:47:005661Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Thank you, Mr Speaker. It really heartens me to hear how pleased members on the other side of the House are to see me rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002. I know they will be spending their entire time listening to my words and hanging off everything I have to say, because they know that we on this side of the House really care for veterans and have their interests at heart.This is important legislation that we on this side of the House support. This bill will enable the twice-yearly indexation of the ceiling rate of income support supplements and service pensions, and it really reflects the cost of living and the rises in wages that have taken place. The indexation of the war widows income supplement was frozen in 1986, and this change will allow the unfreezing of this allowance. In 1995, the income support supplement was created in the Veterans' Entitlements Act. At the same time, the frozen rate of $120.10 for war widows on an age pension came into being and many of those pensioners transferred from Centrelink to DVA.I believe that members in this House will join in support of this bill. It really looks at budget measures. There is only one key issue, and that is the amendment that provides for the indexation of the income supplement for war widows which we are supporting without hesitation. Every member of this House appreciates the contributions that veterans have made to our country. I think it is only fitting that we should remember that when debating this legislation. In doing so, we have to pay tribute to war widows and the support that they have given to their veteran partners and spouses over the years. It has been a long time coming, but it is good that this allowance is now going to be unfrozen. The war widows pension, as we all know, is a lifetime tax-free benefit, and when these changes come into place it will operate in a way that benefits the war widows.Whilst discussing this legislation, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a ceremony that I attended last Sunday at Swansea, which is within the electorate of Shortland. It was the rededication of the Swansea community war memorial, and it had enormous support from the community. This rededication of the memorial was necessary because the community had joined with the Swansea RSL subbranch and the Swansea RSL and built a wonderful new memorial as a tribute to the veterans of our community.The thing that is so special about this memorial is the inclusion of water in the monument. It is a beautiful marble monument with a water theme. When we look at the service that our veterans have performed over the years, and the connection of this particular area with the water, it makes for a spectacular monument to our veterans. I need to bring to the House's attention the enormous support of the community and the many people who contributed to the cost of the reconstruction and rededication of this community war memorial. We had Brian Arkell, who is a local solicitor, Barry's Quality Pies, Blacksmiths Home Hardware, Cardiff RSL Subbranch and Catherine Hill Bay RSL Subbranch. Catherine Hill Bay is a very tiny place with only about 200 people in the community, but that RSL subbranch contributed towards this wonderful memorial. We have S.P. Chapman optometrists, the City of Newcastle RSL Subbranch, Bruce Clancy, C.D. and S.Y. Colhoun, B. Cunningham, Dorothy's Skin Clinic, Jim Durie, D. and J. Evans, Civic Videos and the Hadfield family. Carrol Hall, who is a real estate agent and no relation to me, contributed as well. I made a contribution, as did Islington RSL Subbranch and Kim Mangos, the local physiotherapist. The maritime services union made a contribution, along with the Newcastle RSL District Council, Newcastle Permanent Building Society, our state member Milton Orkopoulos, Parsons Funerals, N.R. Peattie, Pelican Flats RSL Club, which is the adjoining subbranch, Ken Rutledge Roofing, Shortland RSL Subbranch, Ann and Alan Smith and R.A.J. Stamm. Swansea RSL Club made a substantial donation, as did Swansea Workers' Club. The Department of Veterans' Affairs supported the new memorial. They could see that it was really needed in the area. Also, Newcastle Vietnam Veterans' Association, Wallsend RSL Subbranch and Arthur Woods contributed. I read all those names out to show you the support in the community for this memorial and for veterans. Any legislation that is introduced into this House that helps veterans and war widows is welcomed by the community as a whole.One of the things that has been of great concern to me and to the veterans in the community I represent is the gold card. There have been a number of issues around the gold card within my electorate recently. Doctors have started lobbying for increased fees for the treatment of veterans under the Repatriation Private Patients Scheme. I am sure that I am not the only member in this House who has been contacted by veterans in our electorates. With the gold card, as we all know, veterans are able to access free treatment from their doctors. Recently, veterans have been finding, when they go to the doctor, that the doctor refuses to accept their gold card in payment of services. It has happened with general practitioners and with specialists.00AMVHunt, Gregory, MPMr Hunt—Name one!83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Many doctors are refusing to look after our veterans who went to war, who supported our country and have been prepared to give their lives for our country. The issue of spiralling medical indemnity insurance premiums has added significantly to health costs and has also led to an increase in the price that veterans have to pay for their visits to the doctor, as is the case with all people in the community. While I am not prepared to name a doctor who is not bulk-billing veterans, what I will share with the House is a survey that I performed in the electorate. I rang 25 doctors, randomly chosen, and asked them whether or not they were bulk-billing pensioners and whether they were accepting the gold card from veterans. I found a very sad state of affairs. Over 20 per cent of the doctors I contacted said that they were no longer bulk-billing veterans. Twenty per cent of the doctors said that the men who went overseas and fought for our country were no longer going to have their gold card—which was given to them when they came back at the end of the war—honoured. They were no longer going to receive the free medical treatment that they had been promised. The doctors have been lobbying the government and the government has done nothing to resolve this matter.With the issue of medical indemnity insurance and the government's failure to resolve that problem, we find that there is an enormous increase in consultation fees being charged by doctors. One practice within my electorate has recently, since this problem with the medical indemnity insurance arose, increased its fees from $38 to $43 to $47. When a veteran believes that their gold card is going to be accepted to pay for their medical treatment and they are denied that, they are faced with having to pay a bill of $47. That is not good enough, and that is not what we promised our veterans. Similarly, another surgery has increased its fees from $37 to $40, and so it goes on. I believe that our veterans deserve better than they are getting from this government. They expect more and, to be quite honest, I expect more. Those doctors I surveyed were in the Lake Macquarie part of the Shortland electorate. We are also receiving phone calls from the Central Coast. I have had two phone calls and an email today in relation to the fact that doctors are not accepting the gold card. The AMA have written to all members of this parliament about this matter and how they need the government to act immediately. If they do not act immediately, we are going to have the same situation that we have with bulk-billing generally and those veterans who have looked to the government for security, those veterans who have fought for our country, will be let down and will be forced to pay for a service that they have always believed was their right to receive.Another budget measure that was introduced this year that had the potential to cause enormous hardship to veterans was the increase in pharmaceuticals. I am pleased to see that has been stalled in the Senate, but I feel sure that this government will bring it back and try to bring about that increase. There is no group of people in the community who are more reliant on medication than our veterans. I have recently been approached by quite a few veterans who are upset about some of the medication that is no longer covered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. They are also very worried about what the effect will be of this increase in cost that the government is still trying to push through. One veteran I was talking to told me that he takes 18 tablets a day. He is terrified about the proposed increase in the cost of medicines, as is another veteran who takes 14 tablets a day. Another veteran that has been coming along to talk to me recently is also quite upset about the cost that he incurs in having his medication packed in a Webster pack. What the government has done with that particular budget measure is try to introduce a quick-fix approach rather than looking at all the issues that surround the cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.For the remainder of my speech I would like to refer to a submission that the Partners of Veterans Association of Australia Inc. have submitted to the Committee for Review of Veterans' Entitlements. This is a particularly strong group of women. Their patron is Mrs Lynne Cosgrove. Their president is Narelle Bromhead, who lives within the Shortland electorate. The women who are involved in this group are very dedicated. They are dedicated to improving conditions for veterans and their partners. In their submission they start off by reaffirming their unreserved commitment to the veterans of the Australian armed forces with qualifying service and then go on to talk about a number of issues. They talk about the war widows compensation pension. This pension was introduced under the War Pensions Act 1914 as compensation, paid to veterans' widows, for the death, from war related injuries, of their husbands. The submission refers to a speech that was made in 1917 by the then defence minister, Senator Pearce. The speech reads:One of the saddest spectacles of the past has been to see men who have been willing to risk their lives in the defence of their country left destitute and the dependants of men who have laid down their lives for their country having to live on charity.That is a situation that these women worry about. They feel that, currently, they are not adequately covered and that there are quite a few problems in this act, particularly in relation to younger war widows. They make the point:The Australian government must consider as a first priority, veterans of the Australian forces with `qualifying service' and their dependent families.They say that they welcome the changes in this legislation but they believe that it does not go far enough.They refer to the war widows compensation payment, the domestic allowance that is paid to war widows, and the income support supplement and the need to revisit that. In particular, they refer to the issue of age. The income support supplement is payable to women over 58, and they refer to the impact that has on younger women. This group of women are particularly concerned about the fact that younger widows are expected to try to re-enter the work force but they are not given adequate training to do that. They do not believe that the government is really serious about supporting war widows and helping them re-enter the work force or to develop new skills. They see that a lot of war widows have been under extreme pressure for a considerable time and they view it as a cost-cutting exercise rather than an exercise designed to help them. I call on the government to really get serious about veterans and to support our veterans and our war widows. (Time expired)10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Before I call the member for Hasluck, I remind the member for Shortland that contributions to a debate should be relevant to the bill before the House. I ask the member for Shortland to take that into consideration in future debates.22:07:005664Jackson, Sharryn, MPMs JACKSON00AN2HasluckALP00—I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002. I am always pleased to have the opportunity to speak on legislation that affects veterans. This is especially so because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to them and to acknowledge their service to the country. I was privileged, as an official of the Miscellaneous Workers Union, to meet many veterans employed as national park rangers, security officers and in other industries covered by the union. Often these men—and I think it is a reflection of their character and who they are—also volunteered to take on roles such as delegates in their workplace, taking on the responsibility of representing their fellow workers and taking up issues on their behalf with the employer. Such workplace representatives make an extraordinary contribution to their colleagues. In particular, I am talking about people such as Cedric Turner—or `Shorty', as we know him—Colin Evans and Ron Donnelly, who were all rangers at Kings Park; Bob Woods, who continues to play an extremely active role in the TPI Association; Roy Harris, the national park ranger; Brian Neal—or `Bulk', as we know him; Warren South; Phil Kaye, a long-serving representative at CSBP; and of course Phil Clover, who is vice president of the union's Western Australian branch. Given earlier discussion in the House today concerning the Kokoda Track, the House may be pleased to know that Phil has made a significant contribution to following the track and finding the various battlegrounds that have recently been commemorated by the Prime Minister on his trip to Papua New Guinea. As I said, these men continued to serve the community in many capacities after returning from active duty, and their selfless concern for their fellows is heartwarming. That is why it is with great sadness that I have seen some of these men suffer the health consequences of their service to the country. Despite the good services of the Western Australian office of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, it has often been a difficult time for them and their families. I continue to wish them all well and offer what support I can as they deal with those issues.I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for the issuance of the new certificates of appreciation under the Saluting their Service program. It is particularly pleasing to me that these certificates will also recognise what I call the newer veterans—that is, those people returning from service or who served in the Gulf War and in various peacekeeping operations. I am glad they will have their contributions recognised early, unlike the struggle that existed for those Vietnam veterans who were shamefully ignored for many years. However, I do not share the minister's concern in her press release that one of the reasons that we need to do this is that, because of the ageing of our veterans, somehow in the future there will be less attention or recognition paid to Anzac Day. I am pleased to say that I attended many Anzac services in my community and was astounded by the number of young people in particular who proudly wore medals and the like from uncles and grandfathers. Also, nearly all the schools in my electorate had some service to commemorate Anzac Day.I will now go to the specifics of the legislation. The first of these two bills seeks to make three amendments to address inequities and anomalies with regard to the war widows income support supplement, the third being a drafting correction. Amendments in the second bill serve mainly as minor legislative housekeeping items. The first bill aims to remove the frozen ceiling rate of the income support supplement, which is paid to recipients of the war widows and widowers pension, and to twice yearly index the rate proportionally both to CPI and average male weekly earnings in line with other main income support pensions. The amendments also propose concurrent backdating for three months prior to the date of the claim for income support supplement, in line with the present war widows and widowers pension. This will alleviate the financial disadvantage that arises when social security payments cease on granting of the war widows and widowers pension. As it currently stands, the payment of the income support supplement can be provided only from the date of the claim.Although it is encouraging to see some of the anomalies and inequities in the legislation being addressed—for which I offer my support—there still exists a situation under the proposed amendments whereby a war widow or widower under the age of 57, and who is without children, cannot get income support supplement, nor can they get the disability support pension.The government has failed to support the war widows and widowers, who may find themselves in this situation, essentially leaving them with no more than the war widowers pension should their partners die. There could very well be situations where a widow or widower may have spent much of their time as a carer for their veteran partner, often dealing with all of the health care problems of their spouse and the stress that that causes their family. It seems to me that they may find that this has kept them from being able to actively participate in the work force for many years and, of course, they will find it very difficult to find immediately new employment. As the legislation currently stands, widows and widowers in this position seem to me to be almost forgotten and simply left to deal with the system irrespective of the service and the contribution that their spouse has made. I think this shows that there are still a number of issues confronting veterans and their families that the government needs to address. These are some of the areas I want to touch on tonight.The first of them is that the government is still failing to live up to its promise to remove the disability pension from the means test at Centrelink. Currently, veterans with disabilities caused by their service have up to $157 per fortnight deducted from their disability support pension, due to the inclusion of their veteran disability pension in the DSP means test. This situation could be further worsened by any move by the government to force veterans who are currently on the disability support pension to the Newstart allowance. Not only is the Newstart allowance $52 per fortnight less than the DSP but the means test for the Newstart allowance is also much tougher, with the income fee reduced from $112 to $62. For veterans in this position, the exclusion of their non-taxable, non-means tested DVA disability pension from the Centrelink means test would result in immediate and substantial financial relief. This policy suggests that payments of compensation which are made for pain and suffering, albeit unfairly, count as income only for ex-service people and not for the rest of the community—that exclusion is good enough for the wider community but not good enough for veterans. The discriminatory legislation needs to be amended, and with a far greater sense of urgency than this government appears to be prepared to commit. The time has come for the government to stop ignoring the obvious inequities in the legislation and to stop placing the burden for its mismanagement on those men and women who have served this country. The member for Shortland addressed what appears to be recent evidence from members in this House which exposes a trend of gold cards being rejected by some doctors when veterans present for medical treatment. This is also a slap in the face for veterans. We are told that many doctors claim that the schedule fees—that is, the Commonwealth medical benefits scheme rates—are now below the actual cost of providing some services. The government is fully aware of the problem and seems to me to be refusing to address the issue. Instead, veterans are likely to be made to seek medical treatment as general patients and to pay the gap between the Medicare rebate and the fee being charged by doctors. If we are not careful, the gold card is at serious risk of becoming redundant as once again this government ignores the needs of veterans and their families. Veterans deserve to have free access to health care, especially in their older years or if they are suffering from service related injuries. They are entitled to the free treatment that they have been promised. That is part of the deal we do with them when they make their commitment to serve the country.This government has stalled other reforms with respect to veterans' issues. The Clarke review of veterans' entitlements—with, I suggest, its misguided terms of reference—is a classic example of how the government is successfully delaying or putting on ice areas in the Veterans' Entitlements Act that need urgent attention, such as those that fail to adequately recognise the level of service carried out by the SAS. It is also an admission of a failed government policy for veterans. The SAS is not just an elite Defence Force unit; it is a unit whose members are highly trained and skilled at working in the most arduous and stressful conditions. The risk of injury or illness from such service is without question very high, as those serving and their families well know. In order to attain such an elite level, SAS personnel must undergo hazardous training and be exposed to situations of extremely high risk. Exposure to this level of training must be more adequately recognised, and an inquiry should be considered to determine the long-term effects of such service.I know a little about this area, as another veteran I admire—a man named Rick Giblett—has been campaigning for many years to gain proper recognition for service personnel involved in counter-terrorist training. The three things that he has vigorously pursued include, firstly, that counter-terrorist training be declared as hazardous service, to ensure that SAS personnel are able to get access to entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Secondly, there is the question of access to and the level of TPI entitlements and other compensation, as well as the issue of how Centrelink treats these payments. I am aware that these two issues are now part of the current review. I join with veterans and veterans' supporters in my electorate of Hasluck in hoping for a speedy resolution and a successful outcome which clearly recognises that counter-terrorist training is hazardous service and that those personnel involved should be properly treated.The third thing which Rick Giblett and his organisation have been campaigning for—and which I wish to speak about—is a health study. This would be an opportunity to put in place a proper and considered study which collects the facts concerning the health of these particular veterans or personnel. This would acknowledge what those of us who deal with veterans know for a fact—that is, the health issues and problems that these people are dealing with now. Hopefully, the study will make proper recommendations for the future.It was my intention when I first drafted this speech to have quite a go at the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for her failure to take up this question. It seemed to me to be absolutely outrageous that you would have to campaign to get someone to look into whether or not a problem existed amongst this dedicated force. I have been advised very recently by some of the people who are in discussions with the Department of Veterans' Affairs—and I might say that the negotiations with the department seem to be much more successful than those that have been held with the minister and her representatives—that at least those senior people appear now to recognise the great need for an inquiry to be undertaken. I hope that that is the case. I commend them if that is the case. If it is not, I will be back on my feet in this place to make quite a song and dance about it. I have had the opportunity to meet not only with Rick but also with others and to hear first-hand the story of many of the people who have been involved with the SAS and with counter-terrorist training. How anyone could suggest that they do not have a legitimate claim is absolutely beyond me.Perhaps I can put the minister on notice in that respect: she will have my congratulations if the health study is announced and she will hear from me again—and, I am sure, from many others—if it is not. In relation to that, I particularly commend those veterans and representatives of veterans' organisations who have been involved with that active campaign and have been lobbying for what must be at least five years to see this finally come to fruition. I convey my regret that this parliament and this government did not choose to act earlier on this particular issue.Earlier I commented on the Clarke review and voiced my concern about some of the terms of reference for the review. I did that because I think the review has failed to address a number of the issues that confront the totally and permanently incapacitated, TPI, group of veterans. This group has been lobbying the government without success for the last few years to address the shortfall in the value of the special rate they receive as formulated all those years ago. Frankly, that rate has been considerably eroded since. It should also be noted that many TPI veterans—that is, veterans who are considered incapable of working more than eight hours a week because of injuries incurred in the service of this country—also fall into the group that are affected by the inclusion of their disability pensioners income in the Centrelink means test, further eroding what might be considered a reasonable standard of living. In relation to that, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the tireless work and efforts of the many veterans and veterans' organisations I have had the privilege to be involved with since becoming a member of parliament. Tireless campaigners for veterans' rights such as Brian Reeks, a veteran from Thornlie in my own electorate, keep me well informed—on a daily basis, on some occasions—of the many issues confronting veterans, and in particular those issues facing TPI veterans. Brian, along with the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-Servicemen and Women, WA Branch, has lobbied and continues to lobby government on behalf of this group of veterans. They should be commended for their efforts. In that regard, I earlier referred to Bob Woods, another good friend and a solid campaigner in the Active TPI Association. The association have been very active in my home state of Western Australia, attempting to bring their issues to the attention of the community. I have to say that the community of Western Australia supports them wholeheartedly. It is, I think, time that this government addressed the situation of these people in a considered way.Whilst I am paying tribute to those organisations which lobby on behalf of veterans, I absolutely cannot forget the returned servicemen's leagues in my electorate of Hasluck which also do a great job in serving both the returned veterans and the wider community. In particular, I refer to the Bellevue RSL, the Darling Range RSL and the Gosnells RSL, which are all active groups. Along with their respective sub-branch women's auxiliaries groups, they work tirelessly for their respective local veterans' communities and their families. I feel it is vitally important to recognise their efforts. In an age where volunteer organisations are struggling to maintain an operable level of membership, the RSLs in Hasluck stand out as shining examples of how this can be achieved. I offer them my best wishes—and long may they rule! In fact, a couple of those RSL associations are some of the many groups that ensure that there are well-attended services each year, particularly on Anzac Day but also on other important days of recognition, such as Sunday, 18 August for the Vietnam veterans community. I am sure that these services and the work these organisations do in the community will ensure not only that the issues of veterans are brought to the fore but also that we continue to respect and honour the service that has been given to the country by those veterans and their organisations.One particularly heart-warming ceremony I attended on Anzac Day was held at the Railway Workshops, Midland. They have what is known as a peace memorial rather than a war memorial. Funds were raised by the workers in the workshops back in 1923 to build the memorial. They raised 1,000, which in those days was a considerable amount of money. The names not only of those workers who lost their lives in World War I but also of those who lost their lives in World War II are duly recorded on the peace memorial. It is a magnificent memorial: it is a woman standing with her left foot on a sword and with her right arm extended, simply asking for war to cease. It was delightful to see the memorial and to see the relatives, including the grandchildren, of those workshop personnel there. I commend the bills to the House. (Time expired)Adjournment566810000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! Given the flexibility that the member for Fraser has already commended in the chair's actions at adjournment earlier this day, it might be appropriate if, even at this early hour, I were to put the question. It being 10.28 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.566822:28:005668Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise tonight to inform the House of a growing problem in the electorate of Greenway. This is a problem that I believe could easily be rectified by this government, but they choose not to do anything. The problem was highlighted in a couple of questions from the opposition at question time today. The problem I am talking about is the severe lack of child-care places available to the mums and dads in my electorate.Greenway is located in one of the fastest growing areas of New South Wales. New housing developments and the attractive lifestyle of living in a great part of Sydney are bringing many young families to the area. Between 1996 and 2001 the population of Blacktown grew by over 26,250 people, which was the second largest increase in New South Wales. A huge increase in population like that naturally places a large burden on the local child-care centres, where the waiting lists are growing and families are getting frustrated. The child-care centres themselves are being frustrated, because they wish to expand and accommodate new families. They know how tough it is and they want to do something to help, but they are unable to because of a regime that does not allow the flexibility that is needed in an area like mine.In a question without notice by the member for Gellibrand today, it was shown that, since the government came to power in 1996, spending on child care has fallen by over $800 per child-care place, placing a huge strain on providers, who are forced to cut costs wherever they can. There is a particular problem in my electorate with OOSH services, out of school hours services, because the regime that governs the number of places is particularly rigid. Areas like Glenwood, Quakers Hill, Marayong and Schofields are in desperate need of more places, but these places are unavailable. These services have to wait until a committee of bureaucrats politely ask each OOSH in other areas if they will give up some of the places that they are not currently using. Not too many services have spare places to give up, and those that do are naturally unwilling to do so in case of future demand. This leaves the growing areas out in the cold.One case in point is the South Marayong out of school hours care service at Marayong South Public School. SMOOSH, as it is called, began its service in January 2001 with 30 places both before and after school. In the last 12 months they have seen their attendance grow from 2,788 hours of care in term 2 2001 to 6,306 hours of care in term 2 2002. That is a 150 per cent increase in just 12 months. They have a growing waiting list for next year. Honourable members can see by this growth that they are desperately in need of more places, but there are simply none to be had. I have also received a letter from the operators of Schofields OOSH. They are also struggling with numbers and facing huge residential developments over the next few years. Glenwood and Stanhope Gardens are, similarly, crying out for more places. Even if parents were willing to pay full costs, without government subsidies, these OOSH services would be unable to help given the restrictions of the legislation, which does not allow subsidised and non-subsidised places at the same centre.It is fine for universities to have full fee paying students sit next to HECS place students in the same class as a way of expanding opportunities in that sector, but it is not okay for the same arrangement to take place at an outside school hours care centre. This is a piece of logic that escapes me. I have been contacted by many constituents who have been to a number of child-care centres in the area, none of which can take their children because they are full to the brim already. Greenway is a growing area and the growth shows no signs of slowing down, with new housing developments planned for many parts of the electorate and a move in the older areas to medium density housing. With house prices the way they are, young families often need a second income that requires both parents to be working. Children need to be looked after and our child-care system needs to be flexible enough to meet the needs of a rapidly growing community. Unfortunately, what I see is a rigid and inflexible system that struggles to keep up with the changing needs of a growing community. This is precisely why the government must step in and act. Only the government can provide the legislative and financial framework for the overall system. All the framework needs is re-examination and adjustment from time to time, and the time has come for the child-care system. (Time expired)566922:33:005669King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—The question—on which, it is fair to say, I have been interrupted in another place—of when does life begin has given rise to some significant and difficult differences. For the purposes of this debate tonight, there are four views which I wish to raise. The first is what I am going to call the farm view. This is perhaps the most commercial of all the views. It holds that life only begins at birth, because the foetus has independent existence. But, if independence is the test, even the child is not human until it can survive on its own. Some have suggested that, if independence is the test of human life, independence may not occur until children reach teenage years or even until they leave home. The second view is what I call the `ensoulment' view, which perhaps has been best expressed by St Augustine many hundreds of years ago. This view states that it is at 46 days after the fertilisation of the egg—when the soul first enters the foetus, making it appear to move or quicken—that human life first begins. The difficulties with this approach are that it appears to be arbitrary—why not 66 days? Why not 275 days?—and that some do not accept that the soul exists or is a sign or emblem of humanity. I should add that that view has been referred to by leaders in the Uniting Church as being the appropriate view.A third view is that it is only 14 days after conception, when the blastocyst attaches to the uterine wall or is implanted, that it can be said that some form of human life exists. This has been the view expressed by, amongst others, Archbishop Carnley, the primate of the Anglican Church, and by several advisers to Pope Paul VI at the time of the writing of the Humanae Vitae in 1972. The difficulty with this approach is that some scientists have suggested that this process can occur prior to 14 days, and why, one might ask, is dependence on the mother rather than existence of the embryo the relevant test. The fourth view which has gained currency is the moment of conception, which until recently has been considered to be the moment of fertilisation, when the sperm gametes penetrate the egg gametes. But why is it not the creation of the sperm in the genitalia of the man when life truly begins, as argued by Aristotle—the egg merely being the source of sustenance or a vehicle for the sperm to achieve human form? Why is it not at the formation of the limited supply of eggs in a young woman?This discussion illustrates that there are problems with every view as to the real commencement of human life. Each view has some truth, or tells some truth about humanity which is an important aspect of our humanity. Vulnerability is characteristic of each stage. The review suggests that any curtailment of human life, at any stage, is unfortunate and that our focus should be on saving life as a means of protecting it. Hence it can rationally be argued that where life can sustain life—that is, where the embryo can be used to sustain another life by curing some incurable or life-threatening disease—the purpose of life indeed has been fulfilled. Thus the argument is not about destroying human life but about sustaining it by the use of the embryo to produce a stem cell that will, upon adaptation, save or improve an existing life. The moral competition is not between the two precepts `Thou shalt not kill' and `Thou shalt love thy neighbour' but rather the dominance of the latter over the former. The question is important because it will rise again in future debates about human life and medicine, as science becomes more sophisticated and remedies for disease are found that are even more radical than those contemplated by the stem cell debate.I wish to concentrate on an even more precise question than the one I posed in relation to the moral debate. The pressing question is: when precisely does the embryo have accorded to it the status of an individual human person or potential person for whom basic rights of care, protection and life may be claimed? The theological principle behind medical ethics is that all human life is sacred, and on this all Christians and those from many other religions will agree. However, it was in 1869 that, for the Western world at least, the general question was first enunciated by Pope Paul IX. It was then stated that the moment of conception was the relevant point in time. (Time expired)567022:38:005670Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I rise this evening to bring to the attention of the House an exciting environmental restoration project undertaken by year 11 students from Toronto High School in my electorate of Charlton. The project seeks to restore a degraded stream bank on Stony Creek, which is an important estuary that runs into Lake Macquarie. Such has been the excellence of the work that the project is to be recognised internationally by the Volvo Young Environmentalist Awards. Year 11 students Chris McLean, David Carrall and Tony Owen, who have planned and coordinated the restoration project together with biology teacher Greg Smith, will travel to Gothenburg in Sweden next month to be presented with this prestigious international award. These students planned and are currently implementing the project, which has involved a large amount of time in preparing, researching and training to ensure its success.I understand that these students have spent many hours reading through Lake Macquarie City Council stormwater and estuary management reports. They have had to determine the range and prevalence of different species living in the creek's ecosystem through on-site analysis and by consulting experts for positive identification of certain species. Training in weed removal and in occupational health and safety has also been undertaken by the students. The project to restore the banks of Stony Creek has been quite involved. It has included the time-consuming process of replanting eroded areas with specially selected salt tolerant plants. These plants will assist in stabilising the creek's banks. Whilst a number of the plants being used have been provided by the company Trees In Newcastle, many others are being propagated by the students from collected seeds. A nursery is currently under construction by Toronto High School students and other community volunteers under the supervision of Chris, David and Tony, which will consist of around 1,500 plants and 1,000 square metres of mulched native gardens. Funds for the nursery have been provided by the school and Lake Macquarie City Council. The nursery will provide an important riparian buffer between the school and the creek. The stream bank buffer is needed to limit run-off between the school and creek, to slow water movement and to filter nutrients that may otherwise enter the estuary.Chris, David and Tony have also proved to be very effective communicators of their plans and ideas and of the progress of the project. Part of the reason they were successful in achieving this significant international award is the manner in which they have kept the community aware of the project. There have been many dealings with the press which have highlighted their achievements and aims through events such as World Environment Day, Biodiversity Week, National Tree Day and Landcare Week. The Newcastle and Lake Macquarie media have provided coverage through newspaper articles, television news stories and radio. The immediate community would also be aware of the project through stencilled signs on drains in the area marked `The creek starts here'. The students have also engaged in liaison with the wider community by taking tours of Landcare group members to the site of the restoration work and hosting students from the school and its feeder primary schools to participate in environmental awareness activities. Chris, David and Tony will be attending a Rotary dinner to present their project to local Rotarians. I will be honoured to attend the school next week to tour the site and speak with Toronto High School students and staff about this very exciting project and the presentation of the award in Sweden.This entire project is yet another impressive example of the invaluable contributions young people make to our community. Whilst it is fantastic that Chris, David and Tony have received such prestigious recognition, there are still many young people who do not receive the recognition they deserve. Many young people are involved in volunteer organisations contributing to their local, national and international communities and providing services and support in a wide range of areas to further the aims and ideals of our community. This entire project has provided an exciting learning experience for Toronto High School students and is an example of how learning in our schools can change from the old model of kids cooped up in classrooms being told what they must know for their exams. Practical, hands-on learning inspires students who may otherwise not be so interested or capable learners. As the old Chinese proverb says, `Tell me, and I'll forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I'll understand.' I commend the students of Toronto High School and wish Chris McLean, David Carrall, Tony Owen and their teacher, Greg Smith, all the best for their trip to Sweden for the presentation of the Volvo Young Environmentalists Award. I am sure they will continue to succeed in their pursuit of improved environmental outcomes for Lake Macquarie and the important estuary of Stony Creek.567122:43:005671Panopoulos, Sophie, MPMs PANOPOULOS00AMUIndiLP10—I rise tonight with great pride to speak of the students and teachers at the Myrrhee Primary School in my electorate. It is a small government school located in the picturesque wine and tobacco region of the King Valley. It is my pleasure to bring to the House's attention the spectacular achievements of the school's staff and students in the Education Foundation's Dreams and Schemes Awards. What makes the achievements of Myrrhee Primary School so special is not only that they are a small school of 31 students and not only that grade 4 entered these awards in the grade 5 and 6 category but also that they won four out of the five awards in that category. I strongly suspect that they would have made a clean sweep of all the awards had they actually submitted a further entry. The Dreams and Schemes Awards recognise and encourage students as inventors and identify innovations that can potentially be applied in the community at large. The top award won by the school is the 2002 Super Science School Award for their outstanding performance and participation in these awards. Joint winners of the best individual energy idea are Myrrhee Primary School students Georgina Long and Blake Sheather. Georgina's invention is the `Doggie Come Home', a dog collar device activated by a mobile phone. Georgina's dream for her idea is that through the invention of this collar there will not be as many stray dogs, which would be of benefit not only to dog owners and the public but also to the environment. Blake's concept of a vineyard `Bird Scarer' addressed the current problem that birds have become accustomed to timer-activated scare guns. His invention is a loudspeaker automatically activated by birds. The loudspeaker would produce a range of sound effects that frighten birds away from ripening vineyards. This invention would not only be of particular value to award-winning wineries like Dal Zottos and Pizzini's in Blake's backyard but also be useful to the many wineries in Indi. It is important to note that Blake's invention also won the award for the most outstanding innovative idea.Student Ronan Border won the award for the best individual environment idea, a `Watch Watch', a wristwatch that can serve to act both as a screen and a remote control for security cameras in vineyards, clearly an idea with potential to be applied to the general security of commercial premises. Jessica Graham won the award for the best individual biology-chemistry idea, with the `Marc Pot', a biodegradable pot made from wine industry waste that would reduce the number of plastic pots that would eventually end up in landfills.Perhaps by necessity, perhaps by history, country people have always been innovative and self-reliant, both individually and collectively. The students of Myrrhee Primary School are evidence that the spirit of innovation is alive and well in north-east Victoria. These students have the skills, confidence and ability to make a significant contribution not only to their local community but to Australia. They have a great future ahead of them and I am very proud of them. I have no doubt that with the continued support of their parents and the inspiration and guidance from the staff at the Myrrhee Primary School—the principal, Geoff Lacey, teacher Diane Morrison and administrative aide Robyn Kilgour—the students of this local north-east primary school will have every chance to fulfil the potential they obviously have.567222:47:005672Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—During the grievance debate earlier today the member for Paterson accused me of both lying and misleading the House. Through you, Mr Speaker, I thank Deputy Speaker Causley for insisting that the member for Paterson withdraw those unsubstantiated remarks. It was an ill-conceived attack because in fact I accused the member for Paterson of nothing. Rather, I shared with the House a number of stories which have been relayed to me by a number of concerned citizens in the Hunter community. Those stories revolved around the member for Paterson's alleged role in the sacking of the Chairman of the Hunter Area Consultative Committee.Allegedly, the member for Paterson had sought the assistance of Mr Humphrey in securing a Dairy RAP grant for his mate and businessman Joe Sepos. When Mr Humphrey refused to short cut the process, the member for Paterson embarked on a campaign of retribution, working against Mr Humphrey in his attempt to become the endorsed Liberal candidate in the state seat of Maitland and having him sacked as Chairman of the Hunter Area Consultative Committee. The member for Paterson's preferred candidate is Mr Bob Geoghegan. As I said last Thursday night, Mr Geoghegan and the member for Paterson go back some time. The member for Paterson has since claimed that he did not know Mr Geoghegan before entering into a lease with him for his electorate office before 1998, but I know with absolute confidence that there is no shortage of people in the Maitland area who would testify that the member for Paterson certainly knew Mr Geoghegan well before that time.The member for Paterson attempted to refute my claim that a sweetheart deal was done on the lease by claiming that the building was actually purpose-built for Hills Solicitors, a well-known Maitland firm. In fact, the member for Paterson has dug himself much deeper because it is now revealed that Hills were not happy with the design of the building and reneged on the deal before the lease was signed. So Mr Geoghegan of course was left with a new building but no tenant. Happily for Mr Geoghegan, the member for Paterson happened along and gave up a lease in Church Street, Maitland, at $35,000 per annum to take up residence in Mr Geoghegan's building in East Maitland for some $55,000 per annum. Mr Geoghegan must have been so pleased to have the member for Paterson on board.I want to return to the failed application for a Dairy RAP grant by Mr Sepos. The member for Paterson claims he was making representation on behalf of Mr Sepos as the then Liberal candidate for the seat of Paterson, yet insiders told me he approached the HACC as `a lobbyist'. This implies that the member for Paterson was actually being paid for his services, just as he was paid for his work in securing a number of other grants from the Howard government for projects in the electorate, including the Impulse call centre.The member for Paterson's most outrageous claim earlier today was that an application from Sepos for Dairy RAP funding was never submitted. That is not true. An application was submitted, but unfortunately it was submitted incomplete. The member for Paterson first attempted to lodge the application himself but was told quite clearly by the executive officer of the HACC that that would not be appropriate. After strongly protesting, the member for Paterson had Sepos himself submit the application, albeit incomplete. After a number of attempts on the HACC's behalf to have the application completed—they were keen to get on with the job, because the member for Paterson was putting on all this pressure—on November 1 2001 Sepos advised the HACC that he was in no position to complete the application because he was awaiting an assurance from Dungog council that he would be given facilities for free. I will say this for the member for Paterson: he does not let his mates down. He did not let Bob Geoghegan down when he was desperate for a tenant. The deal worked out pretty nicely for Mr Geoghegan, because he sold the building later on with the lease secure from DOFA, a very nice little earner, adding significant value to the building. And he did not let Mr Sepos down when he went looking for a grant. One thing is certain: what the member for Paterson failed to do today was sufficiently and adequately address the questions I posed in this place last Thursday: what was the nature of the deal on the tenancy? More importantly, what was his role in the sacking of Arch Humphrey in his attempt to secure Dairy RAP funding for Sepos? More importantly, what conversations did he have with Ministers Anderson and Tuckey to secure the sacking of Mr Humphrey? (Time expired)567322:52:005673Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—I rise to speak on ocean outfall both within my electorate and nationally, and I will do so in three phases. Firstly, I will look at the problem of ocean outfall at Boag's Rocks on Gunnamatta Beach, within my electorate. Currently, 420 megalitres—that is, 420 million litres—of water flow from the Eastern Treatment Plant in Carrum Downs, underneath the Mornington Peninsula and out at Boag's Rocks on Gunnamatta Beach. The result is threefold. Firstly, health risks are created, and the local surfing community make it very clear that significant health problems flow from the outfall. Secondly, there is clear damage to the marine and coastal environments within that area. Thirdly, there is significant economic waste. The wasted water and other products could be used rather than sent out to sea.I believe there is only one acceptable outcome for water from the Eastern Treatment Plant. Ultimately, three things would occur. Firstly, there would be an increase in the reuse of water at source, within the home. Secondly, there would be an upgrade to potable level of the quality of the water coming out of the treatment plant. Thirdly, all of the water would be used and recycled, ending the problem of ocean outfall. This is a realistic and feasible outcome, as the Clean Ocean Foundation indicates, but it will take time. We must push towards a clear and absolute closure of the outfall.Secondly, there is the notion of governance over different horizons, and there are three phases of governance. Firstly, there are many issues we seek to resolve within the three-year period of the cycle of government. They include economic questions and questions relating to social welfare. Secondly, there are questions we need to deal with over a decade: questions about the nature of education and about the provision of different elements of our work force. There is a lead time for those. Thirdly, there are issues which must be resolved over a generation. I put the case for the creation of a national ocean outfall strategy aimed at ending the waste of water at 142 ocean outfalls throughout Australia by the year 2025. This is a plan for a generational approach to ending the waste of water.Six steps need to be taken in order to bring to fruition this plan for a national ocean outfall strategy. The first is to create a proper valuation of the potential revenue—which we are currently forgoing—from the recovery of commercially saleable fats and oils, metals, solid wastes and, above all else, recycled water. If we were to do that, we would understand the economic value of that which is currently being wasted. That understanding occurs in other countries. Although water is a responsibility of the states—and I believe that all of the states are failing in their responsibilities to address this valuable resource—at a national level, we have to take the lead and say, `These questions are not being addressed.'The second is to identify the best practice global technology to upgrade waste water to A-grade, potable quality water. This has been done in Israel, in many other parts of the developed world and throughout the Middle East, where there is a critical water shortage. We are facing that shortage and it is something we have to address. We have to assess the cost of capital works for this; we have to assess the level of demand; we have to identify opportunities for private and public partnerships as a means of delivering the technical expertise; and we have to assess the capacity to use this water in many of the proposals for inland schemes. I am not saying that these options are viable but we have to consider them at a national level, because the states are failing to do that. This is governance on a generational scale; 25 years from now, the generation to come will need to have had those questions addressed by us. We must begin that process, and I call for a national ocean outfall strategy. I praise the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, who has indicated his interest in questions of water use in the long term. (Time expired)567422:57:005674Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—It is a privilege to rise in the adjournment debate to talk about the situation in the southern suburbs of Brisbane, in my local community, and about the things that are affecting people most at a local level as a result of policies being taken or not taken at the central level, in Canberra. Out in Australia at the moment, one of the big issues in local community life is bulk-billing and affordability of local health services for average families on average incomes. In my electorate in the last 12 months, we have seen a 6.2 per cent drop in the number of doctors providing bulk-billing services. In September 2000, 74 per cent of my local GPs provided bulk-billing services; by December 2001, that had dropped to 69 per cent. My office recently telephoned around to see how many GPs in my local area were still providing bulk-billing services. We found that, having rung 37 of them, only 26 were still providing bulk-billing services. The story our local GPs have to tell is, I think, a story being told across Australia today. Two things are affecting them most. The first is that the Medicare payments they receive from the Commonwealth government have not kept pace with the costs of running their own local medical practices. The second is that, on top of that, there is a new cost in the form of medical indemnity insurance. There are many GPs in my part of Brisbane who have been practising there for donkey's years and who are now ringing me and saying, `I'm tossing in the towel altogether; I'm closing my practice. It's getting too much.' It is a story I hear in each city and town of Australia that I visit. Something has to be done about this, because it is a crisis affecting local families and local communities, for whom bulk-billing provided through our national Medicare system has been a mainstay in the provision of basic health services to families in need.Mr Ron Smith of Bulimba in my electorate came to me recently and said that, because of the abolition of bulk-billing, it is costing him an additional $12 per visit, which adds up to hundreds of dollars extra per year. There are other examples that I have picked up in my many mobile offices across Brisbane's southside. This is where a philosophy of withdrawing basic government attention to health and education services at a local level bites hard for communities in need of basic health services.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:005674House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices5674The following notices were given:00AN1Cobb, John, MPMr John Cobb to move:That this House:(1) notes the serious state of drought across the south eastern part of the Australian continent;(2) recognises the variability of weather patterns across Australia;(3) recognises the serious economic and social impact being felt by rural communities;(4) acknowledges the need to maintain the long term viability of agriculture in the drought affected regions; and(5) calls on State Governments to provide a more substantial financial contribution to drought relief.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith to present a bill for an act to assess certain windfall amounts not paid to the States as tobacco franchise fees or to the Commonwealth as tobacco excise and for related purposes.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin to move:That this House:(1) recognises the need to ease traffic congestion on the New England Highway to assist motorists from areas such as Beresfield and Thornton;(2) acknowledges a recent audit of the New England Highway by the NRMA which found the worst section of the highway is a 12.8km stretch between Hexham and Maitland which includes the Weakley's Drive intersection;(3) further acknowledges the audit which found that this particular stretch of road has a crash and casualty rate 79% higher than the route average;(4) recognises the most recent fatality on the New England Highway when a motorist was killed on the South Seas Drive intersection in August 2002; and(5) calls on all levels of government to progress work along this highway as quickly as possible, including: (a) State Government construction of a link road between Beresfield and Thornton; (b) construction of an interchange at the Weakley's Drive intersection; and (c) funding of improvements to intersections along the highway that have an historically high rate of accidents.2002-08-26—————The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley) took the chair at 8.00 p.m.Bills5676R16085676Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Howard:That this bill be now read a second time.Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth) (8.00 p.m.)—I move:That further proceedings on this bill be conducted in the House.Question negatived.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—You have resolved, have you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the proceedings not be further conducted in the House.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Yes.Dissent from Ruling567620:01:005676Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—In that case, I move:That the Deputy Speaker's ruling be dissented from. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move this motion because it is incapable of the Main Committee to pass such a resolution on the basis that the way in which this bill was sent to the Main Committee by the House is contrary to standing orders. On that basis, the Main Committee can do nothing other than refer the bill back to the House.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The question is that my ruling be dissented from. My ruling on it would be that, under the standing orders of the Main Committee, if there is a disagreement over a resolution in the Main Committee then the bill is set aside and dealt with in the House.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—As I understand it, there has been no disagreement over a resolution. I moved that further proceedings be conducted in the House. You called that that had been defeated, despite the fact that there were three on this side supporting that motion and two on the other side from whom there was no dissenting voice. So the question of an unresolved question does not arise. The Main Committee having passed the resolution that the bill not be returned to the House, I have taken a point of order and the point of order is that the Main Committee is not capable of resolving in that way because the basis on which the bill was sent to the Main Committee is outside the standing orders. That is the point of order I have taken.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The standing orders of the Main Committee are that you cannot resolve an issue in this committee. I therefore rule the question is unresolved and the matter will be referred to the House. However, in accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House earlier today, debate on the bill will continue regardless of any unresolved question.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: do I now understand what you are ruling is that my motion to return the matter to the House so that further proceedings be conducted in the House is an unresolved question?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—What I am ruling is that the standing orders say that a question that cannot be resolved in the Main Committee must be referred to the House. I am ordering that this is an unresolved question and will be referred to the House.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—My point of order is that it is not an unresolved question. If you look at standing order 276, it states:Every question in the Committee shall be decided on the voices and if any Member dissents from the result announced by the Chair, the question shall be recorded in the minutes as unresolved. No member dissented.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is correct. That is exactly what I have ruled.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—No member dissented.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is unresolved, so it will be decided by the House because the Main Committee cannot resolve the question.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—My point of order is on standing order 276, headed `How questions decided—Division not possible'. It states:Every question in the Committee shall be decided on the voices and if any Member dissents from the result announced by the Chair, the question shall be recorded in the minutes as unresolved. No member dissented from the result announced by the chair. The matter was resolved.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I ruled in the negative. There is no point of order. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: your ruling, as I understand it, is that my motion that further proceedings be conducted in the House is an unresolved question. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—It will be resolved in the House.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have moved dissent from your ruling.Question unresolved.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—The ayes have it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I asked for the ayes and I did not hear any. The question is unresolved, so I will refer it to the House.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I rise on the point of order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I asked for all those in favour and there were none.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—You ruled that my dissent was not carried and I called dissent to that.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—There were no voices.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I called it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I moved dissent from your ruling. That was put; you ruled that it was not carried. I raised my voice in accordance with standing order 276 and indicated that it was an unresolved question.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—And I accommodated you by saying that it will be referred to the House.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—But it needs to be referred to the House now. Under standing orders 270 and 276, a dissent from your ruling has to be referred to the House now. It is a dissent from your ruling. It is not covered in any way by the resolution of the House in respect of the bill the House is dealing with, which deems that any unresolved issue be treated—AK6Gash, Joanna, MPMrs Gash—It is not an unresolved question.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I remind the member for Perth of the resolution agreed to by the House before the dinner suspension and point (4) of that says:... the Main Committee continuing debate on the Bill regardless of any unresolved questions.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—`The Main Committee continuing debate on the bill regardless of any unresolved questions'. This is not `on the bill'; this is a dissent from your ruling. This is an unresolved question on a ruling made by you. It is not covered by the resolution passed by the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—As far as I am concerned it is. There is no point of order. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—You have not sat down yet.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I will sit down and I will wait for you to call me on a point of order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Perth on a point of order.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—In accordance with standing order 270 and standing order 276, if one voice is raised in dissent from a chair's ruling, the matter is unresolved and returned to the House immediately. They are the standing orders. A resolution passed by the House prior to dinner does not cover a ruling of the chair and does not cover a motion of dissent from your ruling. It only deals with the bill. Your ruling has been challenged. That is an unresolved question. It must be referred to the House now. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Whether it be a ruling on a point of order, or whether it be a ruling on dissent, I consider that it is a ruling and the fact is that, under the orders that were resolved in the House, which say, `the Main Committee continuing debate on the Bill regardless of any unresolved questions,' this is an unresolved question. I will refer it to the House.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—It needs to be referred to the House now.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—It does not have to be referred to the House now.Miscellaneous5678567820:08:005678Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I move: That the Main Committee has no confidence in the Chair.Question unresolved.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—It is an unresolved question. I will refer it to the House. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, it has to be referred now.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I said it is an unresolved question. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—The ayes have it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I heard the ayes and I heard the noes and I ruled that the noes have it.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—My point of order is this: there is an unresolved question in respect of the confidence that the Main Committee has in the chair. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Do you want to move another motion?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I have moved a motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have said that the motion is unresolved. I have referred it to the House.Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth) (8.08 p.m.)—I move:That that matter be referred to the House forthwith.Question unresolved.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is an unresolved question. I will refer it to the House.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: there are three unresolved questions. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have referred them to the House to be dealt with.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Firstly, there is the dissent motion. Secondly, there is the motion for want of confidence in you. Thirdly, there is the motion that that want of confidence be referred to the House forthwith. On what basis do you say that cannot be referred to the House? It has to be referred to the House forthwith.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—On the basis of the motion that was moved earlier in the House and carried by the House.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—The House's resolution does not say anything about want of confidence in the chair. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—It says if there are any unresolved questions they will be referred to the House—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—In respect of the bill. Whether the committee has confidence in you or not has nothing to do with the bill. The House's resolution does not cover it!10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Perth will resume his seat! Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (8.10 p.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question unresolved.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are four unresolved questions now.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—They will all be resolved by the House.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—None of them are covered by the motion passed by the House, which referred to the bill. There is an unresolved question in respect of dissent from your ruling. There is an unresolved question in respect of want of confidence in the chair. There is an unresolved question in respect of that want of confidence being referred to the House immediately. There is an unresolved question in respect of whether the member for Perth be not further heard. All those issues need to be referred to the House now, because the motion that was passed before dinner in the House referred to debate on the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Do you have another point of order?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—You must act now. You have no choice; you must act now.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—You have no point of order. I have ruled on all of those.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: this is quite an outrageous performance by the opposition. The motion that was carried in the House is very clear. It says:... the Main Committee continuing debate on the Bill regardless of any unresolved questions. What we are trying to do as a government is to facilitate government members continuing debate on this issue.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have heard the point of order. The member for Robertson will resume his seat. I have ruled on that point of order.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is very precise. The motion provided by the House says:... following arrangements applying in relation to the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 ... It is nothing to do with the substantial procedural issues that the member for Perth has been raising and disagreeing with you on. His point is valid: this should be returned to the House forthwith.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I remind the member for Lilley of point (4), and I will take him to the third last word, which says `any' unresolved questions will be referred to the House.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—It is clearly subsidiary to the lead paragraph in the motion passed by the House. The lead paragraph relates only to the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. If the parliament had wished this to extend to procedural matters of the Main Committee, that would have been included in the motion passed by the House. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. You are debating the issue. WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—Mr Deputy Speaker, how can you rule, as you have, that dissent from the chair on procedural matters—where a clear majority of people in the Main Committee dissent from your ruling—is considered under point (4) of the resolution that you are quoting as to not refer this back to the House? This is a clear abuse of the democratic process. AK6Gash, Joanna, MPMrs Gash—That is exactly what you are doing and you should be ashamed.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—I am not ashamed about this, because the majority of the members in the chamber should be able to decide what the procedure of this chamber is. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat. I have heard his point of order. The standing orders say that, if the Main Committee cannot resolve a question, it is referred to the House. I have referred the unresolved questions to the House. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Deputy Speaker, they clearly do not resolve—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Do you have a point of order?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I certainly do. The motion passed by the House of Representatives earlier this evening clearly does not go to the procedural matters that are currently being contested on the floor. As I said to you before, (1), (2) and (3)—the subsets of the overall motion passed—relate only to the bill. They do not relate to procedural matters, otherwise those standing orders—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The member for Lilley is debating—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Deputy Speaker, will you let me finish?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—No. The member for Lilley is debating the issue. I said that there is no point of order.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—You have not heard me out yet.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order; you will resume your seat.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—On that, I will take a point of order. The point of order is very simple: there are specific standing orders which relate to procedures which are not mentioned in the motion that has been passed by the House of Representatives earlier this evening. They are not mentioned at all and therefore they are clearly outside the ambit of your ruling. Had the parliament wished to suspend procedural matters before the Main Committee, all of those existing procedures in the standing orders would have been mentioned in the motion that was passed by the House of Representatives only a couple of hours ago.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will say again that the principle issue involved here is that this chamber cannot resolve an issue. Even though the motions might be moved and ruled upon, this chamber cannot resolve them; they have to be referred to the House. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: you have already resolved those matters and this should be referred to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, I have not resolved them. The issues have been referred to the House for resolution.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, I too raise a point of order. I very clearly heard the honourable member for Perth move a motion of dissent from your ruling. That is why I came into this chamber. I would like to know on what ruling you can say that the motion we voted on in the House, dealing with (1), (2), (3) and (4), has anything whatsoever to do with dissent from the chair's ruling? I would like to know what advice you have taken from the clerk on how you can possibly say to the honourable member for Perth that his dissent from your ruling is now going to be covered at a further time in another chamber when, in this chamber at the moment, if dissent is taken against the chair's ruling then that has to be acted on now. Could you please explain?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—For the benefit of the honourable member for Prospect, the fourth point of the motion that was passed in the House says:... the Main Committee continuing debate on the Bill regardless of any unresolved questions.We have four. They have been referred to the House. 7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Further to that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like it clearly explained to us on both sides of this chamber how condition (4) very clearly spells out anything pertaining to dissent from the chair's ruling. We debated that in the House. We took a vote on that in the chamber and that was applicable to the bill before the House being sent to the Main Committee. In the course of this bill coming to this Main Committee, a dissent from your ruling was clearly taken. I would like to be advised how this chamber can keep operating when a motion has not been resolved in which dissent has been taken from the floor against the chairman's ruling.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Prospect would realise the motion was put, was unresolved and was referred to the House. That is under the standing orders of this committee. I call the honourable member for Wentworth.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If that is the case, we should adjourn to the House immediately.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to take the honourable member for Wentworth's time. I am sure he is only too willing to get to the debate as long as both sides of the House are. I would like it explained, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but you have not explained it by referring me or any other member in the Main Committee to clause (4) of the motion put by the Leader of the House. Point (4) clearly refers to the bill that was referred from the chamber to the Main Committee. There was a clear motion put dissenting from your ruling. If that motion has been put and it cannot be carried in this place, then all debate must adjourn and it must be resolved in the main chamber. It is an unresolved question for the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—If the member for Prospect read the standing orders of the Main Committee, they clearly say that an unresolved question cannot be decided in this committee but must be referred to the House. There are four questions that have been put to this committee and are unresolved. I have referred them to the House. AK6Gash, Joanna, MPMrs Gash—You have now wasted 20 minutes.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—With an unresolved want of confidence motion in the chair.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have untold patience.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: as a matter of logic, you cannot have an unresolved motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—What is the point of order?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—The point of order is very simple. You cannot have an unresolved motion of dissent from the chair's ruling. It is just not possible.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Do I have to read the standing orders to the honourable member for Lilley?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—It is an oxymoron.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The standing orders are very explicit about this committee. An unresolved question is referred to the House. I call the honourable member for Wentworth. Miscellaneous56825682Debate resumed.20:20:005682King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—The issues before the House arising—WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Dissent from the chair in any public meeting has to be dealt with before any other matter can be dealt with. You cannot resume discussions of other matters that are substantive matters that were before the House. The House clearly decided that, if there were any disagreement, it would focus on matters substantive to the stem cell legislation. The House did not intend that you would overrule 700 years of procedural debate in any democratic assembly—10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member for Melbourne Ports is now debating the issue. The member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat; he is debating the issue. I remind the member for Melbourne Ports that this is not a public meeting; it is the Main Committee. We are bound by the standing orders—WF6Danby, Michael, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat until I am finished. We are abiding by the standing orders of the Main Committee. I have spelt out the standing orders of the Main Committee. They are what we are abiding by: the standing orders of the Main Committee.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This bill, which we are hoping to debate, is a very important bill—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Robertson is debating. What is the point of order?IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—The point of order is that the opposition are clearly restricting debate. We have passed a motion in the House—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is not a point of order. The member for Robertson will resume his seat.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—The point of order is the fact that we have passed a motion in the House which clearly states that the Main Committee continue debate on the bill regardless of any unresolved question. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have ruled that way.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—And I support that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not want to have to keep raising the question, but the fact of the matter is that the worst unresolved question here tonight is that of dissent from the chair. How can you possibly conduct this meeting when a motion of dissent has been moved?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is now debating—7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—I am just asking for a clear direction.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have ruled—7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—But you have not ruled. You have only referred me to item (4) on the agenda.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—You can resolve this issue in the House, because that is where it will be resolved. If you want to debate the issue in the House, you can debate the issue in the House. I have ruled that these are unresolved questions and will be resolved in the House.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under what standing order of the Main Committee do you say that a matter of dissent from the chair cannot be dealt with by this democratic assembly of people? You said that this is not a public meeting, but the same democratic procedure is inherent in the standing orders of the Main Committee that is inherent in any democratic public meeting. You simply cannot say that you will not deal with the dissent thing and that you will refer it to the parliament.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports is now debating the issue.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—What is the standing order?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—My reply to that is that the House of Representatives has passed a motion and referred it to the committee. This motion says very clearly in clause (4):... the Main Committee continuing debate on the Bill regardless of any unresolved questions.I rely on that. I also rely on the standing orders of this committee, which say that an unresolved question must be referred to the House.008K0Byrne, Anthony, MPMr Byrne—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. In terms of these sorts of things the matter must be resolved immediately rather than waiting for some time for the debate to continue. There has been a dissent motion; it should be addressed. It has to go back to the House immediately; we should not continue the debate. That is my understanding of the standing orders.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is debating the question, too. You were not here when I said earlier that point (4) of the motion passed by the House of Representatives—the Parliament of Australia—says that no questions unresolved in this House can obstruct the debate in this committee. They will be referred to the House for resolution.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. What we are clearly seeing here is a delaying tactic—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is not a point of order.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—The point of order is that they are continuing to discount your ruling. You have read out the standing order—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is not a point of order. I call the honourable member for Wentworth.00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—The issues before this House are complex and of long-term significance—83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.AK6Gash, Joanna, MPMrs Gash—Stop interrupting his speech!83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—I am after clarification here. The member for Perth dissented from your ruling. You stated that you were going to refer that matter to the House. That is unresolved; that is showing no confidence in your decision. Yet you are still in the chair. I cannot understand why the matter has not been sent to the House of Representatives.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Fowler is now debating the issue. I have ruled on that issue.83ZIrwin, Julia, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I have ruled on that issue. I call the honourable member for Wentworth.00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—On the one hand—QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that you have accepted a lot of points of order that may have been on the same point. Whilst I agree with you that the motion passed by the House is quite unambiguous, my understanding with a dissent is that, firstly, we have to follow the correct form and it thus needs to be handed in in writing and, secondly, it is not a question unresolved about the bill; it is a procedural issue. If I may say, Mr Deputy Speaker, with great respect, I am not sure that I have heard a dissent motion moved in this— 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—This is debating the issue. What is the point of order?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—I am not sure that a dissent motion has previously been moved in the main chamber and I guess from that point of view I cannot point to precedent about how it might be handled.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is debating the issue. What is the point of order?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Personally, given that we have never had it before, I believe—Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! What is the point of order?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—I believe it is a procedural issue; it is not an unresolved question associated with the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—There are two clear issues that I have already ruled on, and I have said it over and over again, although it does not seem to be entering any heads at the present time. First of all, the standing orders of this committee are very clear that a motion cannot be resolved in this committee. It must be referred to the House. The second issue is that the motion moved and carried by the House, the Australian Parliament, clearly says at (4):... the Main Committee continuing debate on the Bill regardless of any unresolved questions.That is very clear.AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr Quick—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you inform me who authorised the clock to stop at 19.54? I do not wish to deprive the honourable member of his time but the normal procedure is that once the clock is started no-one interferes with that clock, and it is still on 19.54.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I cannot answer the question. It is probably in disgust.00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—I should say at the outset—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is this: one of the unresolved questions is an unresolved question of the want of confidence that the Main Committee has in you. The House cannot allow—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are making a statement, not a point of order.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I am not making a statement; I am making a point of order. There are two aspects to the point of order. The first is that the House cannot allow such a resolution to continue ad infinitum—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The House can under the standing orders.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—It must deal with the question of want of confidence in the chair immediately. That is the first point. The second point is that in any event—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Can the member for Perth show me the standing order that says that?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Any time a want of confidence motion is moved in the chair it is considered by the House immediately. You cannot allow a question of want of confidence to be unresolved for a period of time. That must be dealt with immediately. The second point is that, in any event, that most serious of any serious procedural motion—just like the other procedural motions which have been the subject of unresolved questions tonight—is not caught by the motion of the House, which is expressly limited to questions regarding the bill. The most serious of the procedural motions goes to a want of confidence in you, and you are saying to the Main Committee that you are happy—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—This is not a point of order; you are now debating the issue.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—You are happy to have that indefinitely as an unresolved question. You cannot allow the House—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are now debating the issue. The member for Perth will resume his seat. I have heard the point of order.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I have not reached my point of order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are debating it. You are not continuing. I have heard the point of order, which is dissent from my ruling.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—The point of order is on the way and manner in which the House needs to deal with an unresolved question about want of confidence in your chairing of this Main Committee. My first point is—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Perth is debating the issue.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—No, I am not.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are not raising a point of order; you are debating.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—The first aspect of the point of order is that you cannot allow the House not to deal with that immediately. The second aspect is that, in any event, the unresolved question is not covered by the resolution passed by the House earlier this evening. That resolution is expressly— 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Perth will resume his seat. You are debating the issue. You are not raising a point of order. You will resume your seat. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I am making a point of order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will rule on the point of order.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—What is your ruling?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—When you sit down, I will rule. I refer you to standing order 276:Every question in the Committee shall be decided on the voices and if any Member dissents from the result announced by the Chair, the question shall be recorded in the minutes as unresolved. Any unresolved question shall be reported to the House and included in a schedule attached to the report of the Committee to the House on the bill or order of the day. Provided that, if the question—That the Committee do now adjourn—is unresolved, it shall be deemed to have been resolved in the affirmative. I have ruled that these questions that have been put to the committee are unresolved. I have referred them to the House.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I have a point of order under standing order 280, which says:Except as provided by these standing orders, the same rules relating to the proceedings on bills and for regulating the conduct of business shall be observed in the Main Committee as in the House itself ...If a motion of want of confidence was moved against the Speaker or a Deputy Speaker in the House, it is incredulous to argue that that would not be considered by the House immediately. There is an unresolved question as to the want of confidence that the Main Committee has in you. That must be resolved immediately.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have ruled, and it will be referred to the House. You can debate the issue in the House. I call the honourable member for Wentworth.00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—The issues before this House are complex and of long-term significance, and they do not admit of the option to do nothing. On the one hand, if the bill succeeds—7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I clearly appreciate and understand standing order 276, which you have read out. I again would appeal to the people here in the Main Committee that standing order 280 is very specific. If a dissent in the chair has been moved, it must be acted on. The chair has provided, through that dissent ruling, no confidence to any speech being given in the House tonight. You have no confidence then, because the dissent has not been qualified. A vote has not been taken on it. The ruling is there, pending. It has nothing to do with the motion we voted on—I repeat it, Mr Deputy Speaker. Again, standing order 276 is specific. Standing order 280 says this committee must run in the same way as the parliament. You must refer the dissent motion against you to the parliament to be acted on now.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I have on several occasions explained to members opposite what the rulings are. I believe that they are probably looking to suspend the committee and are disruptive. I warn members that I will name the lot of them.00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—The issues before this House are complex and of long-term significance but do not admit of the option to do nothing. If the bill succeeds, it will clearly establish unequivocally that, in Australia, cloning of human cells for the purposes of reproductive or therapeutic purposes will be absolutely prohibited, upon pain of criminal punishment.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. The honourable member is on his feet. Could you please explain to me and the Main Committee—I alone have been up here 22 minutes—how he still has 13 minutes remaining on the clock for his speech on this debate. You had called him before I came into the Main Committee and, as I said, I have been here 22 minutes.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—That was a problem that was resolved as soon as it was pointed out to the committee that the clock was not continuing. It is a bit difficult to say how much time was spent in disruption. I call the honourable member for Wentworth.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am going to be a little bit harsh here in a minute.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—As the question is unresolved, I will refer it to the House.00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—On the other hand, if the bill fails, then the position in existence before the COAG agreement in April of this year will prevail; that is, that there will be no legislation on a national basis banning cloning in the states of New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania and varying regimes in the other states and territories. It is generally accepted by both the supporters and opponents of the bill before the House that that position is undesirable. Thus, it is accepted by all sides of the debate that some form of legislation is necessary. Hence, to do nothing is no option at all. In my contribution, I wish to address several issues: the first is the consultation that I have had with my constituents in the federal seat of Wentworth; the second is the issues raised by the difficult question of cloning and its scientific nature; the third is embryo stem cell research itself and the benefits that may arise from it; the fourth is adult stem cell research; and finally, the fifth is the difficult theological and philosophical question which is at the heart of the debate—namely, when does human life begin? I will then discuss the protections in the bill and will finally draw some conclusions which I hope will advance the debate.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite obvious that the member opposite is completely out of time. He rose at 8.20 p.m..10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have ruled on that issue. I said that the clock was a problem to start with. We cannot resolve it at this particular time. I think we need to apologise for that, but I have called the member for Wentworth.00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—The first thing that I did in relation to my constituency was hold a public forum at the Woollahra Seniors Centre in Woollahra in my electorate. I invited Professor Jansen of the Sydney IVF institute, who is one of the leading scientists in this area, to put the yes case and I invited Ms Mary Byrne from the John Plunkett Centre for Ethics—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Wentworth will resume his seat.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I only arrived here a few minutes ago and I need to ask you about the reference to naming all of us—I presume you mean all of us on this side of the committee—in terms of the points of order that have been called here in the Main Committee tonight.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I advise the member for Lowe to read the standing orders.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—I have just arrived and I am wondering why I would be subjected to that, because I have not participated in the debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have the point of order—83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—I am seeking clarification why all of us could potentially be named if we interject or call a further point of order. I want clarification from the chair, because I have taken it as a threat that I cannot say anything for fear of being named. I would just like clarification.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I understand your point of order. The standing orders of the Main Committee clearly state that, if there is a disruption, a member can be referred to the House. I have had disruption. There is no debate on that.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a further point of order. I only arrived in this chamber a few minutes ago and I am not sure what took place before I arrived.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are now on your feet on a point of order disrupting the chamber. The member for Wentworth has the call.00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—I letterbox dropped the suburbs immediately in the area of the Woollahra Seniors Centre and I ensured that there were two advertisements in the principal newspapers that circulate in my electorate. The public meeting which I called was well attended, and the debate was very thorough and effective. The points of view that were put—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Wentworth will resume his seat.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I am trying to resolve these difficult questions. I move:That the committee advise the House of the unresolved question that is before the chair, that the Main Committee adjourn immediately and that, when the House resolves the matters, the Main Committee return.Question unresolved.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—As the question is unresolved, I will refer it to the House.00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—The points of view that were put at that meeting were very instructive to me as the local member. This might be asked: on a question of conscience, why are the views of the constituency relevant in the formation of the opinion of the member as and when he or she votes in the House of Representatives? There are two answers to that, in my respectful opinion. The first is that I take the view that, strictly speaking, I am not a delegate of the electorate but rather a representative and that at the same time, in adopting the representative role, it is important to take into account the views of the constituency. Therefore, I did consider it important to hold a public meeting so that the issues could be aired and so that I would have the capacity and opportunity to draw upon the views of people in my electorate—views, of course, which I respect greatly. Second, at that meeting there were several speeches both for and against, and many questions were put to the experts who presented the case on both sides. The purpose of it was not to obtain a resolution but rather to inform and assist the public debate, which has been a very important one and is going on even to this day in this chamber before you, Mr Deputy Speaker.There were two speeches, however, which were instructive and had a great effect on those who were present. One was by a lady named Skye Banning, who in fact works in my office. She has diabetes and went blind some five years ago from that terrible disease; it is said to be incurable. She spoke very warmly of the importance of the hope that the stem cell research held out for someone like her. The other one was by a man named Adam Johnson, who did not live in my electorate but did drive a long way to be there because he had heard of this public debate. He has motor neurone disease. He was a delegate to the republic convention in Old Parliament House a couple of years ago. He is a very articulate person, and he too spoke very warmly of the hope that was open to him as a result of the possibilities of stem cell research. But it was not my purpose to achieve at that public meeting any resolution or indeed any definition in my own mind of my own views. As a Christian, I earnestly sought the views of local church leaders including rabbis, some of whom live in my area. They include Rabbi Alman, who sits on the World Rabbinical Council. I also visited Archbishop Jensen, who is a constituent who has strong views against embryo stem cell research which are well known. In this way I was able to consult not only the views of the community but also the views of leading churchmen and others who had a contribution to make on the issue.Finally, on the process of consultation in my electorate, I doorknocked in two suburbs, Randwick and Waverley, and I think it is important to put on the record the impression that I had as a result of that doorknocking. Most women, particularly younger women, were in favour of embryo stem cell research but with strict limitations to ensure that there was no commerciality—no sale or transfer in an open market—of embryos, and I believe that it is a very important qualification that they made. The male constituents were not so clear in their views one way or the other on this legislation. Nonetheless, in my assessment there was a firm majority in favour. Then I had the great instructive benefit of reading the report that was prepared by the Andrews committee of this House last year. That was the process that I undertook in consultation with my constituency and the broader electorate in seeking to form my views on the important issue of conscience which is before this parliament.Let me now speak about the second matter I mentioned—namely, the issue of cloning. I know there are some in the scientific community who believe, particularly in relation to the issue of therapeutic cloning, that this is an important scientific advance which should be sustained. However, I do not accept that view, because I take the view that therapeutic cloning is so close to reproductive cloning as to be dangerous and does not admit any true distinction that would permit a proper program of research of the type that is proposed in this bill. Therefore, somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is in effect what is meant by cloning in this context, is properly banned by this legislation, and I strongly support it for that reason.The next issue I mentioned was embryo stem cell research itself. The formation of the embryo for the purposes outlined in the bill does not involve any system of therapeutic cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer or by any other means other than the process, in the IVF laboratory, of the fertilisation of the female egg by the spermatozoa. The embryo is formed from the two gametes: the spermatozoa and the oocytes. The question, therefore, is whether or not this form of research gives rise to any benefit or any limitation which ought to be objected to. The principal benefit is the evolution, via the extraction through pipettes, of the stem cell itself. Not a lot has been said about stem cells as such. Stem cells were first discovered in rodents as far back as 1970, and since then stem cell research has developed quite extensively. It was not until recent years that the extraordinary ability of stem cells to take on the physical form of cells surrounding a host body, called pluropotentiality, was appreciated. Whether it is a liver or whether it is brain cells—even blood and bone marrow—stem cells grow to ensure the purification, in a sense, of that particular organ or human part.It is quite clear that the extraction of stem cells from embryos by that form of research and the potentiality that this holds out for the broader community, as well as the scientific community, is extraordinary. It has been described by some as the most important development in medical science since the development in the 1920s of penicillin that marked significant advances in medical science. The real question is: are there any alternatives to the extraction of stem cells from embryos? One proposal which has had a lot of publicity recently is adult stem cell research. I do not wish to go through the details set out in the Andrews report of the scientific aspects of the extraction of adult stem cells by the process of cell compatibility. In summary, there are two perceived advantages in the scientific community of embryo stem cells, which do not adhere in adult stem cells. The first is that, generally speaking, the adult stem cell has a shorter shelf life than the embryo stem cell. That can be significant in some scientific research, which is referred to in the Andrews report and in other articles. The second is that the adult stem cell is less flexible.10000Mossfield, Frank (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (8.48 p.m.)—I move:That the member's time be extended.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I am advised that that is not possible. TK6Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr Southcott—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the resolution from the House does say, in point (2), `each member speaking for a period not exceeding 20 minutes'. I sat through the member for Wentworth's speech. He would have spoken, I am sure, for less than 10 minutes, so in view of that I support the motion for the extension of time because I believe he should have the opportunity to speak for a period of 20 minutes, as was outlined in the resolution by the House. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am advised that the time for the member's speech has expired.20:49:005690Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—What a remarkable evening. I rise to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Society as I know it has changed remarkably over my 61 years.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The clock does not seem to be working. It seems to be favouring one side of politics more than the other.10000Mossfield, Frank (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! The clock is now working. Thank you for that.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Start again, Harry. You have some good things to say.AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICK—Thank you. I will start again, if I may. Society as I know it has changed remarkably over my 61 years—family structures, the concept of community, medical innovation, telecommunication advances, travel options and educational opportunities. Growing up as a child in Ballarat, Port Augusta and Rainbow, I experienced the impact of various diseases on the community—whooping cough and measles, to name a couple. They impacted not only on me but also on my schoolmates. I well remember as a youngster the polio epidemic and the way in which medical professionals fought to curb the disease and its cruel impact on families. I remember as a youngster in the early 1950s visiting my father in the Ballarat Base Hospital as he fought for his life while suffering from pneumonia—a disease in those days that caused many deaths.Medical research in these times was pretty basic, initiated by some amazing Australian scientists and little understood and little heard of by ordinary citizens unless the diseases hit their families and impacted on them. As an overseas traveller in the mid-1960s, I remember being vaccinated against smallpox and being violently ill from my shot. Due to wonderful medical research and international governmental cooperation, the world is now free of this disease. Like many in this House, I well remember the time when the IVF debate occurred and the accusations, claims and counterclaims that flew from those who supported and those who opposed this medical advance for infertile couples wanting children. A close family friend's son was one of the earliest recipients of a bone marrow transplant to combat his leukaemia. Just over three years ago my life was saved by medical research when part of my heart failed in its operation.I have been listening with great interest to the many speakers in this debate—speakers on both sides of the political fence and on both sides of the ethical issue. A conscience vote in the House is a wonderful thing. We finally get to hear views of people as they speak from the heart—or at least one would hope so. Too often in this place many members trot out in their speeches what is acceptable to their supporters and their party and not really what they themselves feel is right and proper for Australia and its people. Having the freedom to wander across the field, explore every nook and cranny and then finally decide on where you want to build is something to be treasured and encouraged. It is a pity that it does not happen more often in this House.It is also a pity that some people in this place just cannot help themselves, even when it comes to a debate like this one on a bill that has been a source of great controversy. I would like to have seen each and every one of us participating in this debate, and it saddens me that not everybody is participating. I would like to have seen a cessation of stereotyping, name-calling, personal abuse and character assassination because of the views a person holds. Why not just put forward your own point of view and leave it at that?As a member of this place for 10 years, it has been fascinating to see the reaction of supporters of the opposing views on embryonic stem cell research. We have all been bombarded by emails, faxes, letters, form letters and mailed booklets from both sides of the argument. This is somewhat disappointing, to my mind, as the people who have contacted me have never spoken to me before and have never contacted me on any other issue. This worries me, as I am very sceptical of people with a single issue in mind, whether it is in favour or against the issue.Like others in this place, I have been bombarded with letters. I would like to read a couple, not just from one side but from both sides. I received this one here the other day—I think it was Monday—from a lady in Kingston Beach:Dear Mr QuickI just wanted to let you know I am opposed to using embryos for stem cell research, even those embryos that will be discarded after IVF.Not enough has been said of the research using adult stem cells because they are a viable alternative.It seems to me that any legislation that allows the use of embryos—produced for whatever initial purpose—is opening the door to things we cannot and have not contemplated.Yours sincerelyJean RichardsonLooking at her wonderful writing, I would assume that she is a little bit older than I am. Here is another letter, from the other side of the fence:Dear Harry I don't know how you intend to vote on the bill concerning stem cell research but I thought it might be an opportune moment to mention my daughter Amanda who has suffered from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis since the age of 16 months. The following is overlong and if you use it in your speech I leave it entirely to you as to which pieces of information that you use.I am going to read the lot. It continues:She has never known what it is to run and play in the manner of ordinary children and now at the age of 28, there is a real worry for me that I might outlive her. She can barely walk properly and the likelihood is that a wheelchair will become mandatory in the near future. She has a walking frame and an electric scooter, but the latter cannot be carried around in her car. It goes without saying that I have made many health contributions for drugs, specialists and the type of equipment needed by the severely handicapped.From an early age, she endured drug and chemical treatments that would sorely test most adults. By the age of four, she was taking a prescribed dose of eight Disprin tablets a day. This lasted until the medication caused a stomach ulcer. The appropriate drugs for that condition were duly prescribed and she took them in combination with most of the anti-arthritis drugs of the day.In many respects, she has been a guinea pig or a test subject for the medical profession and was an early candidate for the use of methotrexate, an anti-cancer drug of considerable toxicity, which had been found useful in the treatment of arthritis. She endured traction in bed, which closely resembled a medieval rack and behind it all, constant and severe pain.At the age of 16 Amanda had a hip replacement which nearly cost her her life, as the surgeon inadvertently nicked a major blood vessel. Further operations followed in the sequence of a replacement knee, the other hip, the other knee and more recently, a shoulder joint. Arthritis also affects the eyes in the form of iritis. My daughter has already had the lens of one eye replaced and has had follow up laser surgery. I think you will agree that sight is one sense that most people would least like to lose.Needless to say she is not very mobile, and the first prothesis caused problems which required invasive surgery and rebuilding of part of her pelvis which had crumbled. Her surgeon was concerned about yet another general anaesthetic, as his usual anaesthetist noted collapsing blood vessels during the last operation. Mercifully, she survived the operation but required six weeks bed rest and is now undergoing rehabilitation.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 8.58 p.m. to 9.17 p.m.AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICK—Before the suspension, I was quoting from a letter. It continues:Throughout her trials and tribulations, my daughter has shown great courage. In taxing circumstances, she obtained a degree at Monash University ... She remains on a cocktail of drugs, including morphine, for arthritis and chronic pain. The unpleasant fact remains that this disease has twisted her body, stunted her growth, produced swelling through the use of steroids and reduced her life expectancy—a situation of which she is only too aware. She has osteoporosis at the age of 28 and is probably menopausal. That means she will be denied children, a matter of sadness for us all. Of late she has commented that death could be a more desirable state, a remark which produced a severe reaction in me. I am not saying she is suicidal—far from it, for she battles on indomitably. It is unlikely that she will ever get married and increasingly probable that she will have to live with her mother and stepfather in an unhappy setting. It goes on finally to say:Her rheumatologist has told her that stem cell research offers her the best chance of repairing some of the damage done to her bones and joints but it will not cure twisted fingers and deformed feet. Nevertheless, it is widely regarded as a cure for the disease ... On her behalf, I urge you to vote in favour of the bill. Best wishesChris PownallAnthea Patterson, a lovely lady who owns the Hartzview Vineyard, faxed me a letter which reads: Dear HarryAs our representative in Canberra I felt it important to communicate to you how passionately we feel about this issue—that is, Anthea and her husband, Bob. She continues:I was deeply concerned this morning hearing Bob Carr talk about embryos as only the size of a pin prick as if therefore they weren't real life. Also justifying killing these precious lives to help those who are sick or suffering from some disease. The bible makes it abundantly clear in Psalm 139:16, 17 when David is speaking to God he says:“Your eyes saw my substance being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.” Clearly God has given us life and it is precious to Him, we have no right to take a life no matter how young. Kind regards Anthea PattersonAs I said, we have heard from people on both ends of the spectrum. There are many of us here who, for the first time for a long time, are actually talking to each other across party lines, wondering whether we are going to split this bill. There are people talking of abstaining from a vote. There is a band of seven of us on our side, the Labor side, who are contemplating voting no. There are people on the other side, some very dear friends of mine, who are in turmoil. This is not an easy issue. Some of my close friends are scientists; I admire many of them. We have scientists on our banknotes; they are remarkable Australians. But I think that, when you get six of them in a room, you probably get seven different opinions. On something as contentious as this, it really worries me that we have such a divergence of opinion. We have those who say that embryonic stem cells are the way to go; others say it is adult stem cells. When you read the newspaper or scan the Internet, you get 27 versions of the same story.I am a person with a deeply religious belief in life. My late father was a very humble, Christian man who gave up butchering to become a lay preacher and then, at the ripe old age of 68, took a divinity degree. He has been the model for my life since I was a young child. When we had the euthanasia debate I was torn, because Dad was dying from pancreatic cancer. As I have said before, I stand here today because my life was saved by some very fine medical research. Every morning I wake up and thank God that I am still alive. My mother has one of those hyphenated diseases. We celebrated her 85th birthday the other week. I said to her: `Mum, wouldn't it be nice to keep you a little bit longer? But I think your body is wearing out and the good Lord has decided your days are numbered.' And she is happy about that. She is in a nursing home.I guess having a conscience vote means that I make up my mind. I weigh up all the pros and cons. I think of my 26-year-old daughter living in London and my 22-year-old daughter living in Melbourne, and I wonder how I would feel if they caught some dreaded disease. Thank God—touch wood!—they are free from disease. But I do wonder, if either of them got breast cancer or some other horrible disease that affects women, how I would feel. Would I change my mind? But I have faith that many of these things are being resolved.I noticed in the paper today that some people were saying that we are spending tens of millions of dollars on this when, across the oceans, in places far away, young people are dying from lack of food and lack of medical resources. We in the Western world—wealthy, self-content—are able to direct almost unbelievable sums of money into research to keep ourselves happy and alive longer. I look at some of the doctors who are out working in Aboriginal communities and I pay tribute to them; yet I see another branch of the medical profession obscenely refiguring people so that they look younger and better and healthier. And I wonder what medical research—all this science—is about.There is a wonderful piece of Scripture that I want to include. I know there are people on my side who declare themselves humanists and probably pooh-pooh some of the things I have said. But this is Harry Quick's version of life. There is a wonderful verse, Hebrews 11:1, that sustained my father through many trials and tribulations, and it has sustained me as well. It says:Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.I have faith that, somewhere along the line, many of these diseases will be cured. That will not be in my lifetime. I like to think that the good Lord will give me another 20-odd years and that I will survive as long as my father, who passed away at 87, did. But I am against cloning. I would like to see the bill split up; then I think we would get a 100 per cent vote against cloning. But when it comes to embryonic stem cell research I honestly believe that it is not the way to go. I think there are options other than putting all your eggs in one basket. I know we have spent millions of dollars setting up this wonderful research centre. But I have talked to people in the cancer network; the member for the Riverina and I are cosponsors. We had Daffodil Day the other day.We have heard of some remarkable advances in the management and treatment of cancer in all forms and it has not involved embryonic stem cell research. I do not think it is the way to go. I know that I am not going to be in the majority on this. I will be pooh-poohed by people on my side and by people on the other side. That does not worry me; as I said at the outset, this is a conscience vote. I am saying what I believe. I have faith in humanity that many of the dreadful things that afflict us—AIDS, youth suicide, poverty, family disfunctionality—will be cured.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 9.26 p.m. to 9.50 p.m.AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICK—In the last few minutes of my speech, I would like to sum up my argument. This is a very controversial issue. I would like to think that there are 150 of us who have thought long and hard about the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I will hold no grudges against my colleagues and those from the other side as to how they vote. I will be interested to see exactly who does speak and who does not, and I would like to question as to why and why not. I would like to think that there will be 150 speeches from the heart, as mine is tonight.In the euthanasia debate my two daughters did not agree with my point of view, but I said, `Sarah and Hannah, this is my conscience, my decision. I am not going to be swayed.' I can honestly say that I have never been swayed by anybody; I am not that malleable and pliable that I do as I am told. I do as I think and as I feel, and as I know the people in my electorate expect me to do. I would like to think that they will admire me for taking a stand; whether they agree with it or not is another matter. I would urge all members of this place to split the bill so that we can have 100 per cent against cloning, and then let us have a vote on the actual issue of embryonic stem cells. To the scientists who work tirelessly in this field, I say congratulations; I do hope you will make breakthroughs. For the people who are suffering, may God look after you. Some of you will be cured. I guess the younger ones have more hope, more possibility, than people my age who are encumbered with disease. I look forward to hearing other speakers in this debate. I hope and pray that they will speak from their hearts. When it comes to the vote in the main chamber of this House, this wonderful place that we are all privileged to serve in, I would urge all members to cast their vote not with an eye on those who shout loudest and longest but from their hearts, praying and hoping that the decisions they take will have an impact on not only the people in their electorate but all Australians. I thank those who do speak to this bill. With those words, I thank the members of the House for their patience; it has been a rather tumultuous evening. Lots of things have been said, and I look forward to hearing other members speak in this place on this very controversial but essential bill.21:53:005695Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—I rise tonight to speak to the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I think that it is important right from the start that we understand what this bill is about. This bill is an act to regulate certain activities involving the use of human embryos, to prohibit human cloning and other unacceptable practices associated with reproductive technology and for related purposes. This bill is an exercise of the mind and it is a torment for many people who are debating this bill. Some will stand here debating this bill on religious grounds, ethical grounds and other considerations important to them, for this bill has been put to us as a conscience vote—to vote as we see fit in line with our conscience.The one thing I would urge all of my colleagues to consider is that we allow the splitting of this bill so that we can determine the vote—and from everyone I have spoken to, there is unanimous support for voting it down—on human cloning of any sort. Then the main issue in this bill, the use of embryonic stem cells, can be debated and a vote taken on its merits. I say from the outset that I respect every individual's opinion here, no matter what it may be, but I do have objections to those who claim that people with moral fibre seek to inflict moral standards upon others.We need to go to the very beginning to understand where life actually begins. Life begins when a living sperm fertilises a living ovum—they are not dead sperm; they are not dead ova. To believe there is a point in time some five days later when life begins is quite wrong. And that is the textbook version: all of the embryology textbooks confirm that, in fact, all human life begins at fertilisation. The formation of that individual human being is when the DNA is typecast, and at that point in time it is a real human life. Destruction of that human life for whatever reason should never, ever be considered. At that point, as I said, the DNA is formed, and with DNA we have a distinct human structure with a set gene pattern—herein, a life. To purposely try to destroy that life is really to conduct tests on human beings. There is no other way of applying our conscience to it.What I have tried to do in this whole debate is to keep an open mind and look for answers. I have listened to the experts. I am not a scientist, and neither are most of my colleagues, but I know that we have all gone in search of answers. We have had briefings from people like Professor Michael Good, the Director of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, head of the Co-operative Research Centre for Vaccine Technology and head of the Comprehensive Cancer Research Centre. We have heard from Dr Peter Silburn, a neurologist, who is also Adjunct Professor of Human Movement Studies and Molecular Neurobiology at Griffith University and the Faculty of Health at Queensland University of Technology, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Medicine at the University of Queensland, President of the Parkinson's Society in Queensland and Vice President of the Movement Disorder Society of Australia. We have heard from Professor Alan Trounson, the chief executive officer of the new national stem cell centre, who is the former Deputy Director of the Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development and professor of obstetrics and gynaecology/paediatrics at Monash University. We have also had lectures from Professor Bob Williamson, the Director of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Melbourne and President of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes. When I hear the discussion and debate from these people, all eminently qualified, and when we have conflicting views from the country's greatest scientists on whether embryonic stem cell research is actually required, it leaves a poor bunny like me in a very dangerous state. Do I believe one set of scientists or do I believe another set of scientists? After listening to all these scientists, I am convinced of one thing, and that is that all of these gentlemen deserve our respect as they all have a passion to cure the sick. When we are confused by scientists taking a stance on each side, the next thing we need to consider is medical ethics. If we look at the basic principles of medical research, we think about the Hippocratic oath. Parts of that oath have been put down in UNESCO's Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights in 1997 and the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki in 2000. A couple of their key points are that medical research on human beings:(a) must respect the dignity and integrity of the human research subject;(b) must not result in death or disabling injury;(c) must put the wellbeing of the human subject before the interests of science and society; and (d) must be preceded by careful and rigorous assessment of the risks and burdens in comparison with foreseeable benefits to subjects or others.In other words, to carry out destructive embryo research goes against the medical ethics laid down in those conventions.I need only to look at the report into human cloning by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of 2001. As I have said, I have been to a briefing with Professor Trounson. The minority report states:Professor Trounson asserted there is no need to use any more embryos to create embryonic stem cells. This was supported by Mr Robert Klupacs, the General Manager and CEO of ES Cell International Pty Ltd:We have now grown six cell lines within our research laboratories. The commercial reality is that it is very unlikely we will ever have to go back to another embryo source again to grow a new line ... Our position is that we do not think we will ever have to go back to derive another embryonic stem cell line.This report was done in 2001, not much over 12 months ago, and here it is 12 months down the track and we are wanting to go down a different path. You can see why I am confused.We also need to look at—and it has been overridden in a lot of this—some of the expert research on adults stem cells. I read in the Australian on 21 June this year an article by John Kerin and Deborah Hope about Catherine Verfaillie of the University of Minnesota, who has led a team which has isolated rat and human adult bone marrow stem cells which can differentiate into a wide range of cells and tissue types. An article published in Nature raised the prospect that adult cells have significant advantage over embryonic stem cells, with less cancer potential. In supporting that, a letter by Dr David A. Prentice of Indiana State University—where he is a professor of life sciences—has clearly pointed out the differences between the relative performance of stem cells derived from human embryos and those derived from the adult body or umbilical cord blood. He has clearly stated—and I am not a scientist, so I need to refer to these people:Embryonic stem cells have not yet produced a single clinical treatment; there are few and limited successes in animal models; and problems of immune rejection, tumour formation and genomic instability continue to be unresolved.That is a quote from a letter of 20 August from Dr David Prentice. Further, he says, by contrast—and this is the most important thing—that adults stem cells have proven successful in laboratory culture and animal models. They are already being used in a wide range of clinical treatments. I am not against research. I am not against saving people's lives or curing diseases. I am against the destruction of human life.The other thing that has happened in this whole argument is that there has been great tugging at the emotions of the people involved in the debate. We have seen Christopher Reeve, who played the role of Superman, wheeled out in a wheelchair, saying, `Unless you support this, I will never walk again.' That is part of the problem. There has also been a video showing a rat cured by using embryonic stem cells. Dr David Prentice says that, whilst that video was shown, it has actually not been published yet and the stem cells used for that treatment were not embryonic stem cells but germ cells delivered from a nine-week-old fetus.Today we are going down the track of stem cell research. When do we ask for the next movement of the line in the sand to allow people to use embryos of not just up to five days but up to 14 days and then up to 21 days? At what point in life do we stop pushing the barrow wanting to take life? My good friend Alan Cadman, the member for Mitchell, is in here and, like me, he has said quite clearly in many of the discussions that life begins at conception. I looked at all the evidence provided. I went through some of the other stuff from Professor Bob Williamson. I quoted his credentials earlier on. He said:Embryo stem cells have two great advantages—they grow rapidly and easily in the test tube, and they can form ... into any tissue in the body.However, in his documentation he says:They have one great disadvantage; they may provoke immune rejection because they are foreign to the recipient ...He also says that, importantly, the growth at times at this stage cannot be controlled. So, potentially, by developing these stem cells, we may be creating further problems. He also says, to his credit:Adult stem cells can be obtained from many tissues ... They have three disadvantages at present—they prefer to give cells for the tissue from which they are obtained, they are hard to grow, and you have to take them from a patient ... That is very true but what needs to be understood in this is that, as I said quite clearly, for embryonic stem cells you have to destroy a life. As we go further and start to discuss the advantages and disadvantages and try to take the emotion out of it—and that is what I have tried to do in this debate—we see that there are many unsubstantiated claims as to the success of embryonic stem cell research. As I said, no current clinical treatments have been proven successful. There have been very few and limited successes in animal models. It is difficult to obtain pure cultures in the dish. It is difficult to establish and maintain the cells. There are the problems of immune rejection, the potential for tumour formation and the genomic instability. However, when we look at adult stem cells—and they are proven, with a long way to go—it is proven that they have the ability to generate virtually all adult tissues. They can multiply almost indefinitely, providing numbers that are sufficient for clinical treatments. They have proven successful in laboratory culture. They have proven successful in animal models of disease. They have proven successful in current clinical treatment. They have the ability to home in on damage. They avoid problems with tumour formation. They avoid problems with transplant rejection and, most importantly, they avoid the ethical quandary. As we go down this road, we need to make a clear-cut decision, and that decision has to be based on the fact that, when we take cells from a child, from a blood cord or from an adult, we do it with permission. If we take the cells from an embryonic stem cell, we are taking life away without permission. Sure, some other person may give permission, but the person or the individual or the human—whatever your interpretation is—whose life it is does not give permission.The other thing that I have to question is whether the development of embryonic stem cell research can or may lead to the genetic modification of the human being. What I find surprising in this whole debate is its context: over the years we have had a lot of debate and a lot of disappointment about genetically modified foods. When we seek to introduce foreign DNA, foreign genetic structure, into a human being to grow, in essence we are starting down the track of changing the genetic structure of that human being, no matter how small. What will be the ramifications of that long term down the track? We do not know. As I said, there are many qualified scientists, but they cannot guarantee us that there will be no problems down the track. The other thing that concerns me is that this whole debate seems to be driven by big business. I do not have a problem with people making money but I do have problems with them making it out of an emotional roller-coaster, where they try to deliver hope and quite often fail yet go for the massive dollars. I find disturbing the threat I heard from some of my colleagues that, if we do not allow it here, this research, this money and this intellectual property will go offshore. But I say this to you: our clear conscience will stay here. We have to make a decision that our values are not for sale at any price. I know people who have children delivered by the GIFT program. How do you say to children that you allowed their potential brother or sister—because that cell is a potential brother or sister—to be experimented on? I also know that it is not easy to say to those who are sick and who need treatment and hope that we would discount that.In light of all these arguments both for and against, I make my decision on this bill based on my ethical beliefs driven by a strong commitment to my God. I refer you to Psalm 139:13-16, which, in summary, says that the unborn are known and loved by God. I ask this parliament to consider splitting the bill so I can personally vote on the banning of human cloning and then use my conscience to vote against the use of embryonic stem cells. I urge all members to allow this so each and everyone one of us can have a true conscience vote.22:10:005699Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 because it provides us with an opportunity for both an important and unique debate. While I am very glad that both major parties have allowed a conscience vote on this bill, I would hope that every member of this House uses his conscience in identifying with a political group and consciously expresses this knowing full well what this means each time they vote and not just on this occasion.The bill that is before us deals with important ethical issues and is the result of a great deal of debate in many forums. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs considered the issue of human embryo research and human cloning for two years before it handed down its report in August last year. The issue has been debated at COAG, party forums and extensively in the media. The NHMRC has taken draft legislation to public forums, so every Australian has had the opportunity to have their say on the issue.Much of the debate in this House so far has been concerned with what this legislation allows. However, it is important to note what this legislation prohibits. The prohibitions that this bill levies absolutely refute arguments that this bill is the thin end of the wedge or that it would set us upon a slippery slope to moral blindness. The prohibitions in the legislation show that this House, as representative of the people of Australia, is capable of making complex moral decisions. The legislation prohibits the creation, importation and exportation of human embryo clones. It prohibits cloning human embryos by embryo splitting or by somatic cell transfer and it provides large penalties for those acts.The bill establishes an NHMRC embryo licensing committee, whose function it will be to license and assess research activity involving the use of excess embryos from assisted reproductive technologies. The prohibitions in this bill, particularly the prohibitions on human cloning, make some fairly substantial moral decisions and show that this House—indeed, the parliament—is capable of making difficult ethical decisions. The controversial elements of the bill pertain to the use of surplus embryos created as a result of assisted reproductive technologies. This bill allows excess embryos from these technologies created before 5 April 2002 to be used in scientific research, but it prohibits research on embryos created after that date. The bill also establishes a scheme to license, assess and enforce standards on research activities involving the use of excess embryos created by assisted reproductive technologies.Mr Deputy Speaker, as you will have observed during the debate, this is an issue that ignites great passion both here in this chamber and in the community. We would be foolish not to accept that the issue of whether to use excess embryos for research is extremely difficult and one of ethics and moral belief. The greatest ethical challenges present themselves, it seems, at the beginning and at the end of life. However, I believe that the parliament is capable of making the right decision. The debate has again made clear to me the very complex nature of biomedical ethics, and that is why I strongly support the Leader of the Opposition's proposal for an Australian bioethics commission. This commission would exist not to defer the responsibility of making ethical decisions from this House to a statutory body but to advise the government on these issues. An Australian bioethics commission would provide a forum in which this nation could discuss detailed ethical and scientific questions rigorously. It would enrich the debate on these issues, which I suspect are only to become more difficult and more scientifically complex into the future. We should not defer the responsibility to another forum, but we do need another forum to inform the debate so that the whole nation can participate in it. Ethics and the underlying values that support them are not something that we as a nation should shy away from. We are only in danger of losing our values if we do not have a clear idea of what they are.It took me a long while to make up my own mind about what I would do in this legislation, but I have taken the decision that I will support the bill. I have not taken that decision lightly. It was only after a great deal of thought and quite careful deliberation of the arguments both for and against and after listening to the debate in the parliament thus far that I came to my decision. I am concerned, though, that this debate is in the Main Committee and not in the House of Representatives. I think the public has a right to listen to this debate, because it is probably the most contentious issue that will be debated during this current parliament. I suspect it will be the only issue on which there is a conscience vote. I am disturbed that we have a situation where the government, using its numbers in the House of Representatives, has moved this matter to this chamber to be debated in this place effectively behind closed doors. Whilst it is true that the debate will be reported in the Hansard, if it had been in the House the debate would have been monitored by the media and it would have been broadcast.I believe that all Australian citizens who have an interest in this debate have a right to understand and know what is going on in the parliament. It seems to me that, by moving the debate into the Main Committee, the government, through the leader of government business, has fatally sold short the interests of the Australian community in relation to this issue. We can talk amongst ourselves as we do in this chamber, arguing one side of the argument or the other, knowing that people on both sides of the chamber are going to share a common view, whether it is for or against. But in the wider community no-one will know. No-one will know unless someone takes the effort, the time and the trouble to make sure that the debates in this particular chamber, the Main Committee, are being monitored and the community is being informed about them. I suspect this will not be the case.This evening we saw the farce of it all when a non-contentious piece of legislation to deal with veterans' entitlements was sought to be referred to the Main Committee in an effort to allow us to debate this subject—this very important ethical subject—in the main House. Unfortunately and sadly, the government refused to allow that referral and as a matter of fact we are now going to debate this legislation in this chamber. Ultimately, we will have a vote in the other place. The record there will record who voted for what but, apart from the vote, the content of the deliberations will, I fear, go unheard.I want to make it very clear that I have consciously considered both sides of this debate and many of the issues. I am not an expert. I am not an expert in ethics or theology or medicine or science, but I do have the ability to make judgments soundly based on my own moral principles and my own ethical standards. But I base my decision on the principle of the value of every human life. I think the answers to the questions that this bill puts must be informed by the value that we place on human life—life that is and, dare I say, life that will be.What we do with the excess embryos that are created through assisted reproductive technologies is a large but not altogether different question. This bill asks us to weigh up the value of banning research on embryos that would otherwise be destroyed against the value of the treatments and therapies that this research may yield, alleviating pain and suffering from some of the most debilitating diseases. The scientific and technical arguments have already been discussed in the course of this debate and I will not go over them here. Suffice to say that stem cell research offers hope for the development of a range of treatments ranging from those commonly referred to in the context of this discussion, from treatments of neurodegenerative diseases—including MS, motor neurone disease and Parkinson's disease—to congenital and other diseases. Specifically, embryonic stem cells have the capacity to differentiate into any other type of cell in the body. Adult stem cells, in contrast, have only a limited potential for differentiation, although recent research shows that some adult stem cells may have the ability to revert or to be passaged to levels of lesser differentiation. While the potential of embryonic stem cell research is immediately greater than that of adult stem cell research, I am sceptical that stem cell research in general will be the panacea that some have made it out to be. I wonder whether all the treatments and cures for diseases that have been touted about this place in the last week will be developed in the future as a direct result of embryonic stem cell research.However, this in itself is no reason to stop embryonic stem cell research. I am also unconvinced that gene therapy and therapies developed through stem cell research will not have unforeseen or adverse effects sometime in the future. There are numerous examples of scientists who have not fully understood the ramifications of their work, resulting in disastrous consequences, and I am sure that they are understood by many in the chamber—well, the few that are here. One example is the outbreak of CJD in Europe, which has been attributed to the use of animal cadavers as a source of protein in feedlots. This may have been done with the best of intentions by scientists who thought that they knew what they were doing, but the consequences for many lives were disastrous. There is also a very simple analogy: scientists introduced the cane toad in an effort to eliminate insects from the cane fields of North Queensland. Of course these are not analogous, but what they demonstrate is that science wanted to produce one outcome and got an unintended consequence. As a result, cane toads have had disastrous impacts upon ecosystems right throughout Northern Australia. It would therefore be churlish to think that in this new area of stem cell research, where the potential benefits are so great, there may not be, down the line, some unforeseen consequences. Many people in the House—as opposed to this particular chamber—including the members for Gwydir and Warringah, have argued that this bill should be rejected because all life is sacred. The member for Warringah argued that it is imperative to protect the embryo because it cannot protect itself, but I fear that they see only the ethical debate and may just have forgotten the ethics. I will not labour the point, but there are many people in Australia and around the world who suffer needlessly and die from preventable diseases. I believe that the views of many people who oppose this bill are in themselves inherently contradictory. The member for Sturt, for example, had some very interesting views on this matter. In his speech to the parliament on the bill, he said:To me, and scientifically, a one-cell embryo has every aspect that is required to form a human being that I have or that you have ...However, he had no difficulty with the fact that the excess embryos created through assisted reproductive technology will ultimately die. He claims:There is a profound moral difference between killing and letting die.He went on to say:There is a vast difference between treating those embryos with that respect and using them for scientific purposes to create human embryonic stem cell lines that destroy and kill the embryo in the process.A question has been raised—indeed, the previous speaker raised it—about when an embryo becomes a person. If we accept that embryos are in every way human, as the previous speaker said, surely and logically it is morally repugnant to create embryos that will ultimately die. If we were to adopt that position we would have to ban all forms of assisted reproductive technology currently being used. To accept the position that an embryo is human and that embryos will be destroyed in the process of this reproductive technology at the same time as supporting that technology is, in my view, to tacitly condone euthanasia. It is to say that embryos destroyed in the process of assisted reproductive technology are human beings and are expendable. It is to say that the death of many human beings is justifiable by the creation of a very few. This argument, to me, is untenable, and I would have thought it puts the proponents of it in a moral dilemma. I have not heard anyone in this House argue that we should ban assisted reproductive technologies and deny some couples the ultimate joy of parenthood. But this is a moral and, to some, a religious debate; it is not a debate that is resolved by religion but one that exists within the religious traditions. The member for Flinders succinctly outlined the debate that continues within the Catholic traditions. I am not going to repeat it here because time will not permit, but I think he gave a very good analysis of the Catholic tradition changing as a result of a decision made by Pope Leo XIII in 1887, which effectively changed Catholic doctrine.My judgment in this matter comes down to the real question that this bill is asking us. The member for Aston crystallised the question when he said: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.It seems to me that those who would oppose this legislation on the basis that we should not use these excess embryos for research and who use the theological and ethical arguments they have been wont to use are contradicting themselves. It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways: either you sustain all embryos or you do not. If you are going to allow them to die, as has been said by others, then it seems to me that the moral dilemma is not so great. Do you tacitly euthanase by exposing these cells so that they just wither or do you intervene? My view is that humankind demands that we intervene and that we maximise the opportunities that would result from this research and from the exploitation of a very few, a very small number of excess embryos, of the tens of thousands of excess embryos that exist and the tens of thousands of excess embryos that will ultimately wither.I was going to illustrate in some detail the contradiction between the views of those who oppose this legislation and where they stand in support of other human life. And I was going to detail how, on the one hand, the moral strength of their argument is pinned on this issue of the value of human life yet, on the other hand, we cannot bring ourselves, as a nation, to deal with the human lives being lost every day to poor health in Indigenous communities in Australia. I would have thought there was some logic in the view that, if you accept the propositions some opponents of this legislation put, we should be doing a lot more about that suffering here in Australia and about the people who are suffering in other parts of the world. To those who would argue for passion and emotion to be taken out of this debate, I would quote the member for Fremantle, who said of this debate: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.After much thought, I have decided to support this legislation fundamentally because it is my view that, if these embryos are to be destroyed in any event, we have an obligation to use them to benefit the living. This is not the thin end of the wedge; the parliament has shown this time after time. I believe that we will demonstrate again through this debate that we are capable of making the tough moral decisions, and I believe this parliament will continue to make the tough moral decisions and reflect the wider community's view. However, I still say that this debate should be conducted in the main chamber.Debate adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 10.31 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing5704The following answers to questions were circulated:5704(Question No. 187)1875704Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 March 2002:(1) Is he familiar with the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions General Insurance Code of Practice issued pursuant to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act and the Insurance Act?(2) Is he able to say what medical treatments for Australian travellers abroad are the subject of the code?(3) What medical treatments for Australian travellers abroad are not covered by the code?(4) Is there a default code of practice that covers the responsibility of insurers for such medical treatments not covered by the code?(5) What punitive or other disciplinary provisions exist for general insurers who fail to comply with their responsibilities as insurers?(6) Do a general insurer's fiduciary obligations extend beyond mere instrumental legalities, including the code of conduct; if so, what are the major heads of fiduciary duties of general insurers?(7) Will he instigate an inquiry into the ambit of the code as it applies to all general insurance policies and general insurers; if not, why not, if so, when?5704Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The General Insurance Code of Practice (the Code) is an industry-based, self-regulatory code for general insurers that is administered by the Insurance Council of Australia.Members of the Insurance Council of Australia must adhere to the General Insurance Code of Practice, which sets out requirements such as proper training of staff, plain language wording and internal dispute handling procedures. The Code was approved by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on 3 August 2000 pursuant to subsection 12FA(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 and section 113 of the Insurance Act 1973.(2) and (3) The Code covers contracts of insurance which are prescribed contracts under section 34 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and include travel insurance.Travel insurance is defined as contracts that provide insurance cover in respect of a sickness or disease contracted or an injury sustained by the insured person while on the specified journey.(4) The General Insurance Code of Practice is the only industry-based code of practice approved by ASIC under s113 of the Insurance Act 1973 for general insurers.(5) The activities of general insurers are governed by a range of laws, including the Insurance Act 1973, the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and the Corporations Act 2002 (including those amendments introduced by the Financial Services Reform Act 2001).These Acts include a range of sanctions which apply where breaches occur.In addition to the sanctions available under this legislation, consumers with complaints about general insurers have access to the General Insurance Enquiries and Complaints Scheme. The GIEC is a national Scheme for consumers aimed at resolving disputes between insureds and their insurance companies.(6) Refer answer to question 5.(7) There is no need for an inquiry into the ambit of the code. The new Financial Services Reform Act 2001 (FSRA) regime provides a comprehensive product disclosure regime aimed at ensuring retail consumers have sufficient relevant, accurate and timely information to make informed decisions about financial products, including information about the significant benefits and risks associated with the product. FSRA also provides a licensing, conduct (including training) and disclosure regime for financial service providers. In order to obtain a licence to provide financial services to retail clients, a financial service provider must have in place adequate internal and external dispute resolution procedures.5705(Question No. 280)2805705Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 March 2002:(1) On what basis has the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) determined that it will not proceed on the complaint lodged by Mr David Coombes, on behalf of Bruness Pty Ltd (Bruness), against Auto Masters Corporation (AMEC).(2) On what basis has the ACCC determined that it will not prosecute AMEC under section 51AC or section 52 of the Trade Practices Act, or any other relevant section of that Act.(3) Why did the ACCC advise the Special Minister of State on or before 24 January 2001 that it had determined that it required evidence from former owners franchisees of AMEC, other than Bruness, before it would consider commencing a prosecution.(4) Was the ACCC's decision not to further investigate or prosecute this complaint based on (a) a lack of resources or (b) a policy of the ACCC to prioritise the further investigation or prosecution of complaints based on either their monetary value or public profile.(5) If not, why did officers of the ACCC advise Mr Coombes on 18 August 1999 that the ACCC was interested in multi-million dollar high profile cases and that the ACCC received on average at least one complaint a week of the magnitude made by Mr Coombes.5705Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The ACCC did not determine that it would not proceed on the complaint lodged by Mr David Coombes, on behalf of Bruness Pty Ltd, against Auto Masters. The ACCC conducted an extensive investigation into the complaint.(2) Following an assessment of the evidence the ACCC concluded that the prospects of successful proceedings by the ACCC under sections 51AC and 52 were slim. Further, as there was no evidence of ongoing conduct that breached the Act it was decided the matter was not suitable for Commission intervention.(3) No written record has been located that the ACCC advised the Special Minister for State that evidence was required from former owner franchisees, other than Bruness, before it would consider commencing a prosecution.(4) (a) No. (b) No.(5) Mr Coombes has asserted that officers of the ACCC made the alleged statements, however the ACCC denies that such statements were made. Mr Coombes was advised in writing on 20 September 2000 that:“As you would appreciate, the Commission is necessarily selective in its choice of enforcement actions. Because it cannot pursue all apparent breaches of the Act the Commission must give priority to action which is likely to have the greatest positive influence on compliance generally. In broad terms, the Commission's selection of enforcement actions is influenced by the likely resource costs and whether a particular matter involves apparent blatant disregard for the law, significant public detriment, the potential for action to have worthwhile educative or deterrent effect, a significant new market issue, such as one arising from economic or technological change or an opportunity to test the reach of the Act in appropriate circumstances.”5705(Question No. 369)3695705Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 16 May 2002:(1) What are the details of all expenses incurred by the Commonwealth and Centrelink during the current “Supporting the System that Supports You” advertising campaign, including, but not limited to (a) production costs and (b) costs for advertising space for (i) all radio advertisements, (ii) all television advertisements, (iii) all print media advertisements and (iv) each State and Territory.(2) What sum does the Minister expect Centrelink will save through this campaign.(3) Given that the advertisements encourage people to notify Centrelink of previous changes of circumstances, is there an amnesty in place for people to update their details without penalty.5706Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) The “Support the System that Supports You” campaign will cost around $474,784 to produce. This includes production of TV, radio, print, internet and outdoor advertising.(b) (i) National radio media is estimated to be $802,160.(ii) National television media buy is estimated to be $2,374,381.(iii) National print media (including newspapers and magazines) should cost $717,337.(iv) A breakdown of advertising costs according to State and Territory is not available.(v) Other advertising costs are estimated to be: internet advertising - $70,000; transit (bus and tram) advertising - $306,450; and media targeted to people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds - $103,649. (2) It is expected that the campaign will result in overall gross savings to Government in the order of $37 million over a four-year period.(3) There is no amnesty in place for people who update their details with Centrelink.5706(Question No. 452)4525706Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 June 2002:(1) What (a) gross and (b) net sums does the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) raise from sales of (i) data and (ii) publications.(2) Has any assessment been undertaken as to the effect of the ABS imposing cost recovery on sales of data on research in Australia; if so, what was the conclusion.(3) What is the rationale for not treating ABS data compulsorily collected as a public good.(4) What prevents the ABS from making its data available on-line and free of charge.5706Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) For 2001-02, the ABS anticipates gross revenue of $1.7m from the sale of publications and $5.3m from other data services. (b) For 2001-02, the net revenue outcome for the sale of publications is estimated to be zero. For the other data services not all costs are expected to be fully recovered in 2001-02, resulting in a negative net revenue outcome of about $1.3m for the year. (2) No specific assessment has been undertaken into the impact of ABS cost recovery on research in Australia. However, the ABS has in place a number of strategies to ensure the widespread use of ABS information for academic research. (3) Summary statistical information or data that are of wide interest to the community, including the main features of ABS publications, are already available as a `public good' and without charge. More detailed data products are of interest to a relatively small group of users. Under the Government's policy for charging, such information is not treated as a `public good' and is charged for on a cost recovery basis. Such charges relieve the general taxpayer of those elements of the cost of the statistical service which have specific and identifiable benefits for particular users. (4) There is already a substantial amount of free information available on the ABS Website. Government policy on charging and the additional significant costs that would be incurred in providing a complete free on-line service, are the main reasons for not providing all ABS statistics free of charge on the Website. 5706(Question No. 459)4595706Vamvakinou, Maria, MPMs Vamvakinou00AMTCalwellALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 June 2002:(1) What was the annual number of insolvencies recorded in Victoria in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001.(2) What share of those insolvencies were registered in the postcode areas of (a) 3036, (b) 3037, (c) 3038, (d) 3043, (e) 3046, (f) 3047, (g) 3048, (h) 3049, (i) 3059, (j) 3060, (k) 3061, (l) 3064, (m) 3427 and (n) 3428?5707Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) publishes monthly reports on levels of insolvencies, categorised both by State and by type of external administration. ASIC figures, including those for Victoria, are published on the ASIC website, www.asic.gov.au.(2) ASIC does not provide figures for insolvencies by postcode area.5707(Question No. 490)4905707McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 6 June 2002:On the most recent data, how many age pension recipients reside in (a) Western Australia and (b) the postcode areas of (i) 6018, (ii) 6019, (iii) 6020, (iv) 6021, (v) 6022 (vi) 6029, (vii) 6060, (viii) 6061 and (ix) 6062.5707Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) There were 150,414 Age Pension recipients residing in Western Australia on the 8 March 2002.(b) There were 17,019 Age Pension recipients residing in the requested postcode areas. PostcodeAge Pension Recipients(i)60182991(ii)60191410(iii)60201319(iv)60211951(v)6022385(vi)6029220(vii)60602568(viii)60612851(ix)606233245707(Question No. 497)4975707Jackson, Sharryn, MPMs Jackson00AN2HasluckALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 6 June 2000:(1) How many recipients of (a) Aged pensions, (b) Disability Support pensions, (c) Youth Allowance and (d) Newstart Allowance, reside in the electoral division of Hasluck.(2) How many recipients of each benefit referred to in part (1) reside in each postcode area within the electoral division of Hasluck.5707Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Payment TypePostcodeAge Pension Includes Wife Pension (AGE) Age Pensions Paid by DVADisability Support Pension includes Wife Pension (DSP) Sickness AllowanceYouth Allowance includes Non StudentsNewstart Allowance includes Newstart Mature Age Total6055678337121199133560561687894399748372860577963582383071699605893533625033218536076188732731935128846107401214164250102961081285540429582283661098094552754972036611021919345529804657Total10669439527474246220575708(Question No. 503)5035708McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 17 June 2002:(1) To the employees of which employers have payments been made under the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme and the General Employment Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme.(2) In which State or Territory was each employer located.5708Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Funds from the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme and the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme have been advanced for payment to former employees of the following insolvent businesses. Legal NameSchemeState1st State Home Loans Pty LtdEESSQLD4C Technology Pty LtdEESSNSWA & K Smith Pty LtdEESSQLDA & S Pty LtdEESSNSWA T Fabrications Pty LtdEESSNSWA.C.N. 002 655 781 Pty LtdEESSNSWA.C.N. 006 906 065 Pty LtdEESSVICA.C.N. 007 794 149 Pty LtdEESSSAA.C.N. 008 102 494 Pty LtdEESSSAA.C.N. 060 301 233 Pty LtdEESSNSWA.C.N. 083 046 342 Pty LtdEESSQLDA.C.N. 084 170 678 Pty LtdEESSVICA.E.T. Operations Pty LtdEESSQLDAbacus Financial Recruitment Solutions Pty LtdGEERSNSWAbbey Park Estates Pty LtdEESSQLDABI Constructions Pty LtdEESSWAAbrasiflex Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWAbsolut Flooring Pty LtdGEERSNSWAccalade Pty LtdEESSNSWAccess to Business Pty LtdGEERSNSWAccountable Property Management Pty LtdEESSQLDACE Resources Pty LtdEESSNSWAce Tyre Service Pty LtdEESSQLDACWE Pty LtdEESSQLDAddot Tooling Pty LtdEESSVICAdelaide Bandag Pty LtdEESSSAAdelaide Drive Pty LtdGEERSSAAdelaide Tanker Services Pty LtdEESSSAAdelaides Meat Catering Company Pty LtdEESSSAAdelia Nominees Pty LtdEESSVICAfro Ostrich Farms LtdEESSQLDAg Parts & Hardware Supplies Pty LtdEESSWAAgada Hair Studio (Bankrupt)EESSNSWAgro Holdings LimitedEESSWAGEERSWAAircon Rentals Pty LtdEESSNSWAirlinc Airconditioning Services Pty LtdEESSQLDAirport Parcel Express Pty LtdEESSVICAirside Maintenance Services Pty LtdEESSWAAirwalk Logistics Pty LtdEESSSAAJ & NJ Fitzgerald Pty LtdEESSSAAlan G Davis Pty LtdGEERSNSWAlberto's Plan Printing Pty LtdEESSVICAlexander Mann Australia Global Markets Pty LtdGEERSVICAlexander Mann Australia Pty LtdGEERSVICAlf Tooth Enterprises Pty LtdEESSSAAll Diesel Repairs and Transport Engineering (Aust) Pty LtdEESSNSWAll Make Mower SpecialistEESSQLDAll Style Furniture (SA) Pty LtdEESSSAAllamax Pty LtdEESSQLDAllen's Painting & Decorating Pty LtdEESSQLDAlliance Printing Group Pty LtdEESSVICAllianz MFG IndustriesEESSWAAllmybills Pty LtdEESSTASAllsilk Holdings Pty LtdEESSQLDAlpetros (No 93) Pty LtdEESSNSWAltern Pty LtdEESSWAAmahla Pty LtdGEERSVICAmbition Clothing Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSQLDAmit Holdings Pty LtdEESSNSWAmple Power Technology Pty LtdGEERSVICAmwayli Pty LtdEESSNSWAndco Commercial Interiors Pty LtdGEERSQLDAndrew Braam (Bankrupt)EESSWAAnlace Pty LtdEESSQLDAntha Pty LtdEESSQLDAnthony James Kirkwood (Bankrupt)EESSTASAny Mortgage Pty LtdEESSTASAP Morling Pty LtdEESSVICApex People Pty LtdEESSNSWApollo Glass & Aluminium Pty LtdEESSNSWAPVAM Nominees Pty LtdEESSSAAquascorp 2000 Pty LtdEESSWAAR Simpson Holdings Pty LtdEESSVICArembal Pty LtdEESSQLDArodbend Pty LtdEESSVICArthur John Colebrook & Eliza Guiseppina Colebrook (Bankrupt)EESSQLDAsh Furniture Pty LtdEESSVICASL Australia Pty LtdEESSVICASN Holdings Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDASN R & D Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSQLDASOP Pty LtdEESSSAAssaycorp Pty LtdEESSNTAssociated Neon (Aust) Pty LtdEESSVICAtkins Transport Queensland Pty LtdEESSQLDAtkins Transport Services Pty LtdEESSQLDAus Steel Roof & Building Products Pty LtdEESSQLDAussie Garages Pty LtdEESSQLDAustral Event Services Pty LtdEESSQLDAustralian Auto Gas Conversions (S.A.) Pty LtdEESSSAAustralian Bath Products Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICAustralian Catering Company Pty LtdGEERSQLDAustralian Concord Freight Pty Limited (In Liquidation)EESSNSWEESSVICAustralian Cutting Systems Pty LtdEESSVICAustralian Derivatives Exchange LimitedEESSNSWAustralian Futsal Federation IncorporatedEESSACTAustralian Home Mortgage Corporation Pty LtdEESSNSWAustralian International College of Tourism & Commerce Pty LtdGEERSVICAustralian Marine Design and ConstructionEESSNSWAustralian Mineral Foundation IncGEERSSAAustralian Peer Group Pty LtdGEERSVICAustralian Quality Council LimitedGEERSNSWAustralian Rural Training Institute Pty LtdEESSSAAustralian Security Networks Pty LtdEESSVICAustralian Speedwall Installations Pty LtdEESSVICAustralian Towbar Company Pty LtdEESSNSWAustralian Travelink Pty LtdGEERSWAAustralianet LimitedEESSQLDAutomotive Fuel Specialists Pty LtdEESSVICAvarice Pty LtdEESSTASAventori Systems Pty LtdEESSVICAvire Pty LtdEESSVICAvonwood Homes Pty LtdEESSVICEESSQLDAywon International Holdings Pty LtdEESSVICAztec Group Pty LtdEESSWAAztec Investments Pty LtdGEERSVICB & B Perfect Clean Pty LtdEESSQLDB & H Bowen (Bankrupt)EESSTASB & L Engineering Construction Pty LtdEESSACTB & M Autos Pty LtdGEERSQLDB D & D R TemplarEESSTASBabidge Coopering Pty LtdEESSSABabseal Pty LtdGEERSQLDBadcock and YoungEESSNSWBalcatta Accident Repair Centre Pty LtdGEERSWABandaid Productions Pty LtdEESSVICBanksia Lifestyle Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDEESSSAEESSWABaramoon Trading Pty LtdEESSNSWBarcode Engineering Services Pty LtdEESSNSWBareket Pty LtdGEERSVICBarjon Pty LtdEESSWABarok Industries Pty LtdGEERSQLDBarron Entertainment LimitedEESSWABarronbend Pty LtdEESSNSWBarwest Pty LtdGEERSWABase Systems Pty LtdEESSVICBave Pty LtdEESSQLDBayside Home Planning (Aust) Pty LtdEESSVICBBC Windows Pty LtdGEERSNSWBedico Trading Pty LtdEESSVICBefuso Pty LtdEESSNSWBenlac Enterprises Pty LtdGEERSVICBenmore Pty LtdEESSVICBentire Pty LtdGEERSNSWBerabay Pty LtdGEERSQLDBeralt Pty LtdEESSNSWBerata Air Systems Pty LtdEESSNSWBernsteen Pty LtdGEERSSABerti Machinery Australia Pty LtdEESSWABES (Vic) Pty LtdEESSVICBeta Building Supplies (Newcastle) Pty LtdGEERSNSWBeta Doors and Bathroom Products Pty LtdGEERSNSWBevkey Pty LtdEESSNSWBFC Hydraulic Services Pty LtdEESSNSWBig Boys Toys Australia Pty LtdEESSQLDBill Harris Smash Repairs Pty LtdEESSNSWBlack Bear OperationsEESSQLDBlue Laser Jean Company Pty LtdEESSVICBlue Mountains Air Combined Pty LtdEESSNSWBlue Park Developments Pty LtdEESSSABlue Ribbon Meat Products Pty LtdGEERSTASBM Culley and AssociatesGEERSVICBMB Factors Pty LtdEESSQLDBoloka Pty LtdEESSWABomilsco Pty LtdGEERSVICGEERSQLDGEERSACTBonebear Pty LtdEESSNSWBooks `n' Books Book Company Pty LtdEESSSABounty (Victoria) Pty LtdEESSWABoutique Resorts Management Pty LtdEESSNSWBow Blue Enterprises Aust. Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDBrackendeen Pty LtdEESSQLDBraeside Cabinets Pty LtdEESSVICBrands Online LimitedEESSVICBridging Gaps Pty LtdEESSVICBrilliant Interactive Ideas Pty LtdGEERSNSWBrisbane Cabs Pty LtdEESSQLDBrisbane International Golf Resort Management Pty LtdEESSQLDBrookbow Pty LtdEESSVICBrown & Joy Industries Pty LtdEESSWABSH Advertising Pty LtdEESSNSWBTM Legal Pty LtdEESSSABudnick and Ranson Pty LtdEESSNSWBusiness Network Pty LtdEESSNSWBXI Corporation Australia Pty LtdEESSQLDC & A Art Pty LtdEESSVICC & E Costas Pty LtdEESSSAC & J Enterprises Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWC & M Ryan Pty LtdEESSNSWC C Kingston Pty LtdEESSTASCadcor Australia Pty LtdGEERSQLDCadtech Queensland Pty LtdEESSQLDCaios Web Solutions (Aust) Pty LtdEESSQLDCairns Fuel Distributors Pty LtdEESSQLDCamastra Pty LtdEESSWACamdale Management Pty LtdEESSTASCamden Press Pty LtdGEERSNSWCamden Property Marketing Pty LtdGEERSNSWCampbelltown Sports Stadium LimitedEESSNSWCampus Online Pty LtdEESSNSWCanberra Skin Cancer ClinicEESSACTCanberra Television Holdings Pty LtdGEERSWACardinal Financial Securities LtdGEERSQLDCaringbah Commercial Interiors Pty LtdEESSNSWCarling Constructions Pty LtdEESSNSWCarlton Shirts Pty LtdEESSNSWCarlton Soccer Club LimitedEESSVICCaroline Haeusler (Bankrupt)EESSNSWCasella Industries Pty LtdEESSWACashfast Pty LtdEESSNSWCasjade Pty LtdEESSWACBS Global Communications Pty LtdEESSVICCEL Music Pty LtdEESSNSWCellsites International Pty LtdEESSNSWCema Pty LtdEESSNSWCenbond Pty LtdEESSNSWCentaur Contracting Pty LtdEESSNSWCentrepoint Private Hospital Pty LtdEESSQLDChampion Forms Australia Pty LtdEESSVICChampion Forms Marrickville Pty LtdEESSNSWChampion Forms Pty LtdEESSVICCheckerboard Bricklayers Pty LtdEESSVICChemnorth Pty LtdEESSNTCherrybell Enterprises Pty LtdEESSNSWChickens Galore Pty LtdEESSWAChircan Holdings Pty Ltd and Mahiya Holdings Pty LtdEESSNSWChocolate Images Pty LtdEESSQLDChoice IT Recruitment Pty LtdEESSNSWGEERSNSWGEERSVICChomiak Engineering Pty LtdEESSWAChristine Anne and Gavin John Robinson (Bankrupt)EESSQLDChristopher Chronis Corporation Pty LtdEESSVICChristopher Worrall (bankrupt)EESSQLDChrome Global LimitedGEERSWACidatec Lighting Pty LtdEESSQLDCity and Country Holdings Pty LtdEESSSACL Jenkins Transport Pty LtdEESSVICClassic Coffee Company Cairns Pty LtdEESSQLDClassic Contructions Pty LtdEESSNSWClassified Consulting Pty LtdEESSTASClear Steel Australia Pty LtdEESSWAClearlite Windows Pty LtdEESSQLDCleveland Plumbing Supplies Pty LtdEESSQLDCliffside Enterprises Pty LtdEESSWAClinical Beauty Pty LtdGEERSNSWClyberg Pty LtdEESSQLDClyrcom Pty LtdEESSVICCo Design Plus Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDCoast & Country Interiors Pty LtdEESSNSWCoastal Irrigation and Rural Supplies Pty LtdEESSSACoastalwatch.com Pty LtdGEERSNSWCobra Clothing Company Pty LtdGEERSQLDCobra Investments Pty LtdGEERSQLDCoby Constructions Pty LtdEESSVICCole Engineering Pty LtdEESSWAColour Your Day Pty LtdGEERSVICColumbia Retail Group Pty LtdEESSNSWCombined Mining Services Pty LtdEESSNSWCombined Mushroom Farms Pty LtdEESSNSWComfort Air Conditioning Pty LtdEESSSACommercial Nominees of Australia LimitedEESSNSWCompanies Under Growth Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDEESSSAEESSWAComplete Commercial Hire & Sales Pty LtdEESSQLDComplete Pets Pty LtdEESSVICComplete Plumbing & Building Supplies Pty LtdEESSNTComprint Australia Pty LtdGEERSNSWComputer Solutions (TAS) Pty LtdEESSTASComputerworks Australasia Pty LtdGEERSVICComputyme Pty LtdEESSVICConpac Security Services Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDEESSSAConroy Raft Cooke Pty LtdGEERSNSWConsolidated Information System Networks Pty LtdEESSQLDConsolidated Ostrich Corporation Pty LtdEESSSACook Street Services Pty LtdGEERSNSWCoolamon Nominees Pty LtdEESSQLDCopeland Electrics Pty LtdEESSNSWCorndale Quarries Pty LtdEESSNSWCorporate Online Pty LtdEESSWACorporate Seen Signs Pty LtdEESSNSWCorsi Holdings Pty LtdEESSNSWCotech Pty LtdEESSVICEESSTASCountry Road Corporation Pty LtdEESSQLDCountry Road Homes Pty LtdEESSQLDCountry Wide Catering Equipment Pty LtdEESSVICCoutts Shopfitting (Australia) Pty LtdEESSNSWCowes Restaurants Pty LtdEESSSACoxsam Viticulture Pt LtdEESSSACreative Catering Equipment Pty LtdEESSNSWCreative Graphix Pty LtdEESSTASCricketer's Club of New South WalesEESSNSWCroftby Downs Pty LtdEESSQLDCrown-Simplimatic Pty LtdEESSNSWCumquat (Vic) Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICCurtainworks Pty LtdEESSNSWCustompak Ballarat Pty LtdEESSVICCybertrade Australia LimitedEESSNSWCypress Homes Pty LtdEESSVICD & C Bradford & Sons Pty LtdEESSVICD & R Pty LtdEESSNSWD & R Timber Products Pty LtdEESSSAD L Project Pty LtdEESSQLDD M D Group Pty LtdEESSQLDDA Services (Qld) Pty LtdEESSQLDDalkeith Manufacturing Pty LtdEESSVICDallapek Pty LtdEESSQLDDamark R V Investments Ptd LtdGEERSVICDamilown Pty LtdEESSSADark Horizon Pty LtdEESSNSWDarren John Burdon (Bankrupt)EESSVICDarren W Thomas and Louise ConnellGEERSTASDataease Pty LtdEESSVICDataline Technology Pty LtdEESSVICDatasource Network (Australia) Pty LtdEESSNSWDavid and Yvette BrooksEESSSADavid Bryan O'Neill (Bankrupt)EESSWADavid Evans and Co Pty LtdGEERSWADavid Hill Electrical Discounts Pty LtdEESSNSWDavrae Machinery Pty LtdGEERSQLDDavrae Machinery Townsville Pty LtdGEERSQLDDays Plant Hire Pty LtdEESSSADe Burg Australia Pty LtdEESSVICDe Campo Trading Pty LtdEESSWADean Crozier Pty LtdEESSQLDDeane Ross Caldwell (Bankrupt)EESSTASDee Sign Frames Pty LtdEESSQLDDeemah Marble & Granite Pty LtdEESSNSWDeistra Pty LtdGEERSVICDelide Pty LtdEESSNSWDelmarco Nominees Pty LtdEESSVICDelzio Pty LtdEESSNSWDemorgan Pty LtdGEERSNSWDennis Keith Baulch (Bankrupt)GEERSQLDDennis Moloney Transport Pty LtdEESSVICDesa Constructions Pty LtdEESSVICDesign A Shade Pty LtdEESSQLDDesign Knit Pty LtdEESSVICDevcon Consultants Pty LtdGEERSQLDDi Mella Constructions Pty LtdEESSSADiamond Air Pty LtdEESSNSWDickensons Travel and Conference Centre Pty LtdEESSTASDiscom Pty LtdEESSTASDivteed Pty LtdEESSQLDDL Kitchens (QLD) Pty LtdEESSQLDDMA Australia LimitedEESSNSWEESSVICEESSACTDon Muller Constructions Pty LtdEESSQLDDonald Archibald Hoggan (Bankrupt)EESSNSWDow Digital Global Pty LtdGEERSWADream Haven Bedding & Furniture LimitedGEERSVICDruckers Pty LtdEESSSADSC Hodge Pty LtdEESSQLDDstore LimitedEESSVICGEERSVICDuchess Publishing Pty LtdEESSWADurhead Pty LtdEESSQLDDwyer Group Pty LtdEESSQLDE & R Clothing Pty LtdEESSNSWE & V Shoe Machinists Pty LtdEESSVICEast Coast Cabinets Pty LtdEESSQLDEast Coast Insurance Brokers (NSW) Pty LtdEESSNSWEasy Equipment Pty LtdGEERSNSWEcam Pty LtdEESSSAEdge Cinemas Pty LtdGEERSNSWEDU Australia Pty LtdGEERSQLDGEERSSAEFBEE Pty LtdEESSVICE-Gistics Coldline Services Pty LtdEESSNSWE-Hire Services Pty LtdEESSSAElcorp Constructions Pty LtdEESSNSWElectronic And Systems Engineering Pty LtdEESSQLDElectronic Repairs Pty LtdEESSQLDElectruck Pty LtdEESSNSWElegant Tailoring Pty LtdEESSNSWElite Neon Pty LtdGEERSNSWEllmat Constructions Pty LtdEESSSAEMB Fire Protection Pty LtdEESSVICEESSQLDEmerge Solutions Pty LtdEESSVICEmmanuel College Gladstone LimitedGEERSQLDEmpire Group Holdings Pty LtdEESSQLDEmpire Street Child Care AssociationEESSVICEnfield RSL ClubEESSNSWEngineered Structures Australia Pty LtdEESSWAEngineering Environment Consultants Pty LtdEESSQLDEnterprise Versace Pty LtdEESSNSWEnvironmental Care Pty LtdEESSVICEPS Australia Pty LtdEESSWAEPS Group Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDEqual Access Communication LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDEquity Die Casters Pty LtdEESSVICErindale Foods Pty LtdEESSVICESRPL Pty LtdGEERSNSWEssex Oaks Pty LtdEESSVICEsta Fashions Pty LtdEESSNSWEtonia Pty LtdEESSQLDEtter and Green Plumbing and Drainage Pty LtdGEERSQLDEuropa Lounge Design Pty LtdEESSQLDEurotech Woodworking Machinery Pty LtdEESSSAEvergreen Trees Pty LtdEESSVICEvergrin Pty LtdGEERSQLDEvermore Express Pty LtdEESSNSWEvro Tool Company Pty LtdGEERSNSWExcalibur Consultancies Pty LtdEESSWAExecom Software Pty LtdEESSWAExhibitions and Events Pty LtdGEERSNSWExpo IndustriesEESSQLDExport Racing Pty LtdEESSVICExterior Design Co Pty LtdEESSVICEzishop.Net LimitedEESSNSWEzywed.com Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDFA Stow & Co Constructions Pty LtdEESSNSWFabrex Australia Pty LtdEESSVICFacer Utilities Pty LtdEESSNSWFactory Automation Pty LtdEESSVICFactory Fresh Pty LtdEESSQLDFairview Windows Pty LtdEESSVICFalcons Industries Pty LtdGEERSSAFar Road Pty LtdGEERSNSWGEERSVICFarley Cutting Systems Australia Pty LtdEESSVICFarnell & Thomas LimitedEESSQLDFashion Clothing Pty LtdEESSQLDFastline NSW Pty LtdGEERSNSWGEERSVICFazzino Investments Pty LtdEESSQLDFeature Furniture Pty LtdEESSSAFelicia K Pty LtdEESSWAFeniche Investments Pty LtdEESSWAFernbex Investments Pty LtdGEERSQLDFerrytravel Pty LtdEESSNSWFesca Pacific Gears Pty LtdEESSVICFinance Credit Corporation of Australia LtdEESSVICFinancial Transaction Services LimitedEESSSAFine Furniture Pty LtdEESSNSWFinestyle Design Studio Pty LtdEESSWAFinney Hallmark Pty LtdEESSNSWFire Free Fire Services Pty LtdEESSNSWFirst Choice Consultants Pty LtdGEERSVICFirst Mortgage Human Resources Pty LtdGEERSQLDFirst Netcom Pty LtdEESSNSWFitness Matters Health Studio Pty LtdEESSSAFlagstaff House Pty LtdEESSQLDFlemco Pty LtdEESSSAFlight West Airlines Pty LtdEESSQLDGEERSQLDFlour Masters Pty LtdEESSNSWFocus Lighting Pty LtdEESSWAFondside Australia Pty LtdEESSQLDForce Electronics (Adelaide) Pty LtdEESSSAForce Electronics Pty LtdEESSSAFordwill Pty Ltd (Bankrupt)EESSNSWFossbah Pty LtdGEERSQLDFosters Painting Services Pty LtdEESSWAFox Leisure Group Pty LtdEESSNSWFrapack Engineering Pty LtdEESSVICFrelyn Nominees Pty LtdEESSSAFrench Caledonia Travel Service Pty LtdGEERSNSWFront Line Mining Pty LtdEESSWAGEERSWAFund Administrators of Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWFurn Craftsman LimitedEESSVICFurniture Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWFurniture West Pty LtdEESSWAFuture Mortgage LimitedEESSQLDFuturetel Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDEESSSAG & M Cinemas Pty LtdEESSACTG & SR & Associates Pty LtdEESSSAG D Sakzewski Holdings Pty LtdEESSQLDG L Heath & Sons Pty LtdEESSSAG L Mitchell Homes Pty LtdEESSNSWG&R Tomarchio Pty LtdEESSVICGaleprufe Doors Pty LtdGEERSQLDGarrods Pty LtdGEERSVICGarry & Joanne Henstridge (Bankrupt)EESSQLDGartoll Pty LtdEESSQLDGascraft Pty LtdEESSVICGate Gourmet Australia Pty LtdGEERSNSWGEERSVICGEERSQLDGEERSSAGEERSWAGEERSTASGates Pty LtdEESSNSWGateway Manufacturing Pty LtdEESSTASGaty Clothing Company Pty LtdEESSNSWGavmick Haulage Pty LtdEESSQLDGazal Caravans Pty LtdEESSNSWGBC Enterprises Pty LtdGEERSQLDGDT Pty LtdEESSQLDGE Consulting Australia Pty LtdGEERSNSWGeldate Pty LtdEESSNSWGemham Pty LtdEESSNSWGenetic Consulting and Testing Pty LtdEESSSAGEO2 LimitedEESSVICGeolab Systems Pty LtdEESSNSWGeorgie Pie Western Australia Pty LtdGEERSWAGeroz Engineering Pty LtdEESSQLDGerringong Bakery Pty LtdEESSNSWGF & GM Balsillie Pty. Ltd.EESSVICGEERSVICGifthouse International Pty LtdEESSNSWGillieston Enterprises Pty LtdEESSVICGKN Investments Pty LtdEESSVICGladstone Fasta Pasta Pty LtdEESSQLDGlass Facades Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWGleason Construction Equipment Pty LtdEESSVICGlen Limberd Harris (Bankrupt)GEERSQLDGlen R & Michelle D Butler (Bankrupt)EESSWAGlendarah Pty LtdEESSVICGlenmore Management Pty LtdEESSNSWGlobal Self Storage Consolidated LtdGEERSNSWGlobalfreeway Pty LtdEESSNSWGlobalITPartners Pty LtdEESSQLDGoder Corporation Pty LtdEESSVICGoGo Promotions Pty LtdEESSNSWGohrt Nominees Pty LtdGEERSWAGoldfinger Cleaning Corporation Pty LtdEESSNSWGoldsmith Family Supermarkets Pty LtdEESSNSWGoodmark Australia Pty LtdGEERSNSWGEERSVICGEERSQLDGrahame Holmes Smash Repairs Pty LtdEESSNSWGrahame James Kean (Bankrupt)EESSSAGrange Systems Pty LtdGEERSVICGraphic Electronic IndustriesEESSSAGreatbuild Pty LtdEESSVICGreen Phone IncorporatedGEERSSAGreenstone NomineesEESSVICGreyhound Pioneer Pty LtdEESSQLDEESSNTGroup Garages Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWGS Business Enterprises Pty LtdGEERSSAGuideline Salon Management Systems Pty LtdGEERSNSWGumfighters Pty LtdEESSNSWGusfoal Pty LtdEESSSAHaitech Pty LtdEESSNSWHalf Price Warehouse Pty LtdEESSNSWHanberg Pty LtdEESSQLDHandvision Pty LtdGEERSNSWHanna Sports Pty LtdEESSVICHarlin Unit TrustGEERSSAHarris Excavation & Demolition Pty LtdEESSNSWHarris Farms Produce Pty LtdEESSNSWHarris Scarfe Holdings LimitedEESSSAGEERSSAHarris Scarfe LimitedEESSNSWEESSQLDEESSSAEESSWAEESSTASGEERSSAGEERSWAHartrade Pty LtdGEERSQLDHavengrove Pty LtdEESSQLDHavollo Pty LtdEESSQLDHaysom Spender Architects Pty LtdGEERSQLDHC Consulting Services Pty LtdEESSVICHealy Airconditioning Pty LtdGEERSWAHeavenly Desserts Pty LtdEESSVICHeidt Bros Pty LtdEESSSAHeirloom Traditional Bedding Co Pty LtdEESSVICHelen Rologas Fashions Pty LtdEESSVICHermans & Johnson Pty LtdGEERSQLDHesse Blinds Pty LtdEESSVICHi Tech Chemicals Australia Pty LtdGEERSVICHills District Day & Evening College Inc.EESSNSWHobbit House Child Care Centre LimitedEESSNSWHockey Enterprises Pty LtdEESSQLDHocking Industries Food Services Pty LtdEESSQLDHoman Industries Pty LtdEESSQLDHome Base Australia Pty LtdEESSVICHome Care Transport Pty LtdGEERSVICHome Fit (NSW) Pty LtdEESSNSWHome Lands Transport Pty LtdGEERSQLDHome on the Range Egg Farms Pty LtdEESSQLDHome-Delivery Pty LtdEESSNSWHomestead Hill Pty LtdEESSNSWHomeville Pty LtdEESSVICHorizon Group LimitedGEERSVICHorizon Medical Pty LtdEESSNSWHospitality Group Training (Vic) Inc.EESSVICHotham Group Services Pty LtdEESSVICHoughton Motors Pty LtdEESSWAGEERSWAHousing Support Works LimitedEESSVICHoward James Sinnott ( Bankrupt)EESSQLDHT Warhurst Pty LtdEESSSAHTI Communication Pty LtdEESSSAHubert Textiles Pty LtdEESSVICHuon Community Child Care Centre IncEESSTASHuon Foam Pty LtdEESSTASHuxley Contractors Pty LtdEESSVICHydrotech Australia Pty LtdEESSSAHypernet Holdings LtdEESSSAI Group Pty LtdEESSVICIBA Furniture Pty LtdEESSNSWIdeal Contractors (WA) Pty LtdEESSWAIdentified Products Pty LtdEESSSAIeipo Pty LtdEESSSAIFCO Arrernte Joint Venture Pty LtdEESSNTIFCO Manufacturing Pty LtdEESSVICIgorta Pty LtdEESSNSWIHG Technologies Pty LtdGEERSWAIllawarra Roof & Guttering Pty LtdEESSNSWImagemaster Constructions Pty LtdGEERSQLDImawill Pty LtdEESSNSWImoburn Pty LtdGEERSQLDImpel Business Solutions Pty LtdEESSSAInaspin Nominees Pty LtdEESSVICInature Australia Pty LtdEESSWAIndustrial Plastics Services Pty LtdEESSSAInfobooth Pty LtdEESSNSWIngram Industries Pty LtdEESSNSWGEERSNSWInroads Clothing Company Pty LtdEESSNSWIntec Computer Technology Pty LtdEESSNSWIntec Computer Technology P/LEESSVICInteractive Media Network Pty LtdEESSNSWInteractive Worldwide LimitedEESSVICInteresource Media Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWInterlay Glass Corporation Pty LtdGEERSVICInternational Shoe Machine Corporation Of Australia Pty LtdGEERSVICInternational Strategies Australia Pty LtdEESSQLDInternova Travel Pty LtdGEERSNSWGEERSVICGEERSQLDGEERSSAGEERSWAGEERSACTInter-Serv Pty LtdEESSVICInterworld Corporation Pty LtdGEERSNSWIntracolour Pty LtdGEERSQLDIntrend Holdings Pty LtdGEERSWAIntrigue Pty LtdGEERSSAInvestment Consulting Services (Australia) Pty LtdEESSQLDIsland Airlines Pty LtdEESSTASIsland Hotels Proprietory LtdEESSTASIsland Produce Pty LtdGEERSTASIsport.com Australia Pty LtdGEERSNSWITF Investments Pty LtdGEERSNSWIt's a Wonderful Life Pty LtdEESSWAIverson Technology Corporation Pty LtdGEERSVICJ & J Resources (TI) Pty LtdEESSQLDJ & J Resources Pty LtdEESSQLDJ & L Ducting Pty LtdEESSNSWJ & L Law Pty LtdEESSSAJ B Waldegrave Pty LtdEESSNSWJ.Bay (International) Pty. LimitedEESSNSWGEERSNSWJack Corporation Pty LtdEESSWAJack James Pty LtdGEERSWAJac's Childcare Pty LtdEESSVICJakita Pty LtdGEERSVICJames Constructions (WA) Pty LtdEESSWAJamie C & Nichole R Cannen (Bankrupt)EESSVICJantke Projects Pty LtdGEERSSAJAS.A.F Pty LtdEESSQLDJasmine Lodge (VIC) Pty LtdEESSVICJason FlanaganEESSVICJB & TM Catering Pty LtdEESSVICJC Bumpers Pty LtdGEERSNSWJeff Chandler (Bankrupt)EESSQLDJeffrey Charles Fuller (Bankrupt)EESSQLDJeffrey Laurence Richards (Bankrupt)EESSQLDJenaria Pty LtdEESSWAJET Curtains Pty LtdEESSVICJett Pty LtdEESSWAJeunique International Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWJewreman Pty LtdEESSQLDJim Warren Transport Pty LtdEESSNSWJMB Energy Services Pty LtdEESSNSWJob Power Pty LimitedEESSNSWEESSVICEESSTASJohn Bruce and Partners Pty LtdGEERSNSWJohn McEwan Foods Pty LtdGEERSVICJohn P Miskell (Bankrupt)GEERSNSWJohns Electrical Industries Pty LtdEESSSAJohns Electrical Services Pty LtdEESSSAJohnson Fork Truck Service & Hire Pty LtdEESSNSWJojak Media Group Pty LtdEESSSAJomards Pty LtdEESSSAJon Marsh Studios Pty LtdEESSNSWJormad (Tas) Pty LtdGEERSTASJPCR Pty LtdGEERSVICJTEX Pty LtdEESSQLDJune Anne Manufacturing Pty LtdEESSNSWJurien Fish Farmers Pty LtdEESSWAJust In Time Furniture Pty LtdEESSNSWJust Information Solutions Pty LtdEESSVICK A Manders & Co Pty LtdGEERSSAKallie Doxaratoras (Bankrupt)EESSNSWKandle Security Services (Qld) Pty LtdEESSQLDKaye Helene Mayne (Bankrupt)GEERSTASKaye Sheppard (Bankrupt)EESSQLDKCS Computer Services Pty LtdEESSVICKeeble Constructions Group Pty LtdEESSVICKeencliff Pty LtdEESSQLDKennedy Taylor (NSW) Pty LtdEESSNSWKennedy Taylor (QLD) Pty LtdEESSQLDGEERSQLDKenrossi Pty LtdGEERSNSWKerry and Leon Pty LtdEESSNSWKevin J & Lisa M Hage (Bankrupt)EESSSAKeyson Pty LtdGEERSVICKgrind Pty LtdEESSNSWKingdeal Holdings Pty LtdEESSWAGEERSWAKingswood Furniture Pty LtdEESSWAKinsey Threadcutting Australia Pty LtdEESSVICKira Bay Pty LtdGEERSWAKlaus Horst Urban (Bankrupt)EESSQLDKnightsbridge Finance Pty LtdEESSWAKo Huna Management Pty LtdEESSQLDKompas Holidays International Pty LtdGEERSQLDKosmos Plastics Pty LtdEESSVICKrishna Australia Pty LtdEESSVICKTB Engineering Pty LtdEESSQLDKyrros Pty LtdEESSVICL & J Sheetmetal Pty LtdEESSNSWL & R Dover Pty LtdEESSTASL & R Electrical Pty LtdEESSQLDL.E. Murphy & Associates Pty LtdEESSNSWLady Dale Pty LtdEESSQLDLamberto Travel Holdings Pty LtdGEERSSALangmere Pty LtdEESSQLDLapoon Pty LtdEESSWALarnce Leigh Event Management Pty LtdEESSVICLarock Nominees Pty LtdEESSWALavin Australia Pty LtdEESSVICLawNow LimitedEESSNSWEESSQLDLellacon Pty LtdEESSVICLengyel Pty LtdEESSNSWLeonardo C Casella ( Family Trust)EESSNSWLet's Talk Security Pty LtdEESSWALevers Sawmill Pty LtdGEERSNSWLife Plus International Pty LtdEESSQLDLightmoves Technologies Pty LtdEESSNSWLimebay Holdings Pty LtdGEERSWALincoln Constructions (WA) Pty LtdEESSWALinea Verde Pty LtdEESSVICLinkbar Pty LtdEESSQLDLionat Pty LtdGEERSQLDLipsync Pty LtdEESSVICLockett Marketing Australia Pty LtdEESSQLDLonava Pty LtdEESSQLDLowenstein Electrical Contractors Pty LtdEESSVICLuton Contractors Pty LtdEESSWALux Furniture Pty LtdEESSVICLyndon Rewinders Electrical Pty LtdEESSSAM & G Food Services Pty LtdEESSQLDM & J Heddle Pty LtdEESSSAMaes LtdGEERSWAMagnaflex Pty LtdEESSSAMagnavetic Pty LtdEESSQLDMain Street Holdings Pty LtdEESSWAMainace Pty LtdEESSWAMainline Pty LtdEESSQLDMakram Pty LtdEESSQLDMALB Pty LtdEESSTASManage IT Group Pty LtdGEERSWAMarco Polo Pasta Company Pty LtdEESSQLDMarfran Pty LtdEESSVICMariangelo FashionsEESSTASMarilynne Pross-Vale & Associates Pty LtdEESSNSWMarisa Matteucha (Bankrupt)EESSNTMark Sabadina Investments Pty LtdEESSQLDMarketing Manoeuvres Pty LtdEESSVICMarlin Mushrooms Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSQLDMarlington Transport Pty LtdEESSSAMartin James Boland (Bankrupt)EESSVICMartin O'Donnell (Bankrupt)EESSQLDMary Ryan Bookshop Pty LtdEESSQLDMaryborough Bottleshops Pty LtdEESSQLDMAS Food Industries (Australia) Pty LtdEESSWAMasonic Club of Tasmania Inc.EESSTASGEERSTASMatrix Ventures Pty LtdEESSNSWMatthew James Perkins & Diane Mary Poriazis (Bankrupt)EESSNSWMaunder James Electrical Engineering Pty LtdEESSQLDMaureen Patrica Horne (Bankrupt)EESSTASMax Kavanagh & Sons Pty LtdEESSVICMaxiform Investments Pty LtdEESSWAMazebah Pty LtdEESSQLDMcCalls Enterprises Pty LtdEESSNTMcMahon Graphics Pty LtdEESSNSWMcMaster Pty LtdEESSQLDMCP Reinforcements Pty LtdEESSNSWMeatpackers (Australia) Pty LtdEESSSAMecelec Pty LtdEESSVICMedical Management Australia Pty LtdEESSVICMedical Services AustraliaEESSACTMehsen Maroun ( Bankrupt )EESSNSWMekong Restaurant Group Pty LtdEESSQLDMertec Crew No 1 Pty LtdEESSQLDMetrocourt Pty LtdEESSQLDMetropolis Interactive Pty LtdEESSNSWMetropolitan Media Pty LtdEESSVICMetusi Pty LtdEESSNSWMG & EF Devlin (Bankrupt)GEERSTASMHD Constructions Pty LtdEESSQLDMichael & Nadine Hansen (Bankrupt)EESSQLDMichael John Banfield (Bankrupt)EESSACTMidas Interactive Entertainment Pty LtdEESSVICMilk-Flo Australia Pty LtdEESSVICMills Harding Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICMiners Rest Hotel-Motel Pty LtdEESSVICMiranda & Norris Pty LtdGEERSNSWMirrortec Industries Pty LtdGEERSWAMistbird Pty LtdEESSNSWMitetab Pty LtdGEERSNSWMiva Corporation Pty LtdEESSNSWMLC Services Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDEESSSAMM Pty LtdEESSWAMobile Automotive Touchups Pty LtdEESSVICMobilia Cabinets Pty LtdGEERSWAMoh Australia Pty LtdEESSQLDMolco Holdings Pty LtdEESSNSWMonash Bargain Centre Pty LtdEESSVICMondo Victoria Pty LtdEESSVICMonsami Pty LtdEESSNSWMonseal Pty LtdEESSVICMontarah Pty LtdEESSVICMornington Accident Repair CentreEESSVICMorrish Transport Service Pty LtdEESSVICMount Seaview Holiday Retreat Pty LtdEESSNSWMountain Maid Pty LtdGEERSNSWGEERSVICMPT Constructions Pty LtdEESSVICMRH Shop Fitting Pty LtdEESSVICMrs Conny Fishlock (Bankrupt)EESSVICMt Gambier Performance Pty LtdEESSSAMt Gravatt Sporting & Workers Club Inc.EESSQLDMTJ Pty LtdGEERSSAMuirfield Services Pty LtdEESSVICMultari CorporationEESSWAMultilift Systems Pty LtdEESSVICEESSQLDMurray Robson Wines (Bankrupt)EESSNSWMurrumbidgee Computer Services Pty LtdEESSNSWMy Terms Pty LtdEESSNSWMyjen Australia Pty LtdGEERSQLDN B Control Services Pty LtdGEERSQLDNambucca Valley Delivery Service ( Bankrupt)EESSNSWNarrawal Pty LtdEESSQLDNastec Solutions Group Training Scheme IncEESSSANastec Solutions IncorporatedEESSSANational Office Supplies Pty LtdEESSSANational Panel Products Pty LtdEESSQLDNational TextilesEESSNSWNeco Marketing Pty LtdEESSSANemas Pty LtdEESSNSWGEERSNSWNetline Technologies Pty LtdEESSSANetwork Sets & Scenery Pty LtdEESSVICNetwork Welding Pty LtdEESSNSWNeurological Resource Centre of South Australia IncorporatedEESSSANevelle A & Norelle C Cranfield (Bankrupt)EESSQLDNew Wave Graphics Pty LtdEESSVICNewspar Pty LtdEESSWANewsweep Pty LtdEESSVICNicholas Steward Pace (Bankrupt)EESSQLDNicholson International Pty LtdGEERSNSWNidary Pty LtdEESSQLDNinderry Constructions Pty LtdEESSQLDNMAIVA Holdings Pty LtdEESSNSWNoblecombe Pty LtdEESSQLDNoddys Beverages Pty LtdEESSVICNoel Best (Bankrupt)EESSQLDNoise Barrier Constructions Pty LtdEESSQLDNolasco Constructions Pty LtdEESSNSWNoltec Engineering Pty LtdEESSNSWNomad Services Pty LtdEESSVICNorluck Investments Pty LtdEESSQLDNorth Adelaide Finance Pty LtdEESSSANorth Queensland Bearings Pty LtdEESSQLDNorthern Visions Pty LtdEESSQLDNoteworthy Performance Pty LtdGEERSVICN-Space Services Pty LtdGEERSSANurul Deen Trading Co Pty LtdGEERSWANu-Style Constructions Pty LtdEESSQLDOakleigh Joinery Pty LtdEESSVICOakwood Quest Pty LtdGEERSVICOcean Towers at Burnie Pty LtdEESSTASOctavius Holdings Pty LtdEESSWAOffice Equipment Company Pty LtdEESSWAOnkourse Pty LtdEESSSAOn-Site Computers Pty LtdGEERSQLDOrator Group Pty LtdEESSVICOrbit Offset Pty LtdEESSNSWGEERSNSWOrwil Pty LtdEESSQLDOscar Howard Electrical Contractors Pty LtdEESSVICOur Town Four Wheel Drive Pty LtdEESSNSWOutback Cuisine Pty LtdEESSNSWOutsource Solutions Pty LtdEESSNSWOverseas Designer Warehouse Australia Pty LtdEESSVICOz Fruits International Pty LtdEESSSAOzabode Pty LtdEESSACTOzEcom LimitedEESSNSWP & S Fabrications Pty LtdEESSNSWP B Industrial Control Services Pty LtdEESSSAP T & D K Phillips Pty LtdEESSSAPacific Commerce Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICPacific Knowledge Networks Pty LtdGEERSNSWPad Print 2000 Pty LtdEESSVICPaine Manning Property Management Pty LtdEESSNSWPalace 1 Pty LtdEESSNSWPandaragan Pty LtdEESSWAPanopera Pty LtdEESSVICParadise Color Litho Pty LtdEESSQLDParadox Digital Pty LtdEESSWAParafield Print Works Pty LtdEESSSAParafield Soft Furnishings Pty LtdGEERSSAParamount Projects Pty LtdEESSNSWParker Bros Constructions Pty LtdGEERSQLDParklane Constructions Pty LtdEESSWAParklane Corporation Pty LtdEESSWAParramatta Glass & Aluminium Centre Pty LtdEESSNSWParsons Contracting Pty LtdEESSTASPartners in Jeans Pty LtdEESSVICPathfinder Building & Consultancy Pty LtdEESSWAPatiocraft Pty LtdEESSNSWPatra Furniture Co. Pty LtdEESSVICPatricia Anne Loone (Bankrupt)EESSQLDPaul Moloney Constructions Pty LtdEESSVICPBA Professional Pty LtdEESSWAPBG Investments Pty LtdEESSQLDPeachtree Consulting Group Pty LtdEESSQLDPearl Grove Pty LtdGEERSWAPearlbubble Pty LtdEESSQLDPennex Pty LimitiedEESSNSWPentatech Systems Pty LtdEESSSAPerc Matthews Rural Services Pty LtdEESSVICPerry Engineering Pty LtdEESSSAPetelan Pty LtdEESSVICPeter & Sharon Flint (Bankrupt)EESSQLDPeter George Cominos (Bankrupt)GEERSQLDPhaze 2 Pty LtdEESSVICPhoenix Italia Australia Pty LtdEESSVICPhoneland Australia Pty LtdEESSSAEESSNTPhotoplay Australia Pty LtdEESSWAPiccadeli Enterprises Pty LtdGEERSVICPilot Recruitment Pty LtdGEERSNSWPine Pacific Pty LtdGEERSNSWPinnacle Interiors Pty LtdGEERSVICPlanet Edge Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWPlastex Pty LtdEESSVICPlatinum Logistics Pty LtdEESSWAPlatinum Music Pty LtdEESSWAPleve Pty LtdEESSACTPLM Formwork Pty LtdGEERSNSWPoltane Pty LtdEESSVICPolymer Corporation Pty LtdEESSQLDPope Electric Motors Pty LtdEESSSAPort Wakefield Road Bottle and Can Pty LtdEESSSAPositive Business Solutions Pty LtdEESSQLDPossum Fields Pty LtdEESSVICPower Clean Australia Pty LtdGEERSVICPower Supplementary Labour Pty LtdEESSNSWPowerline GES Pty LtdGEERSNSWPre Press Digital Pty LtdEESSVICPremium Technologies Pty LtdEESSVICPreston Cleaning ServicesEESSVICPrevenance Pty LtdEESSQLDPrince Construction Pty LtdEESSNSWPro:Con Systems (AU & NZ) Pty LtdGEERSNSWProdispak Pty LtdEESSNSWProject Constructions Pty LtdEESSQLDProlane Pty LtdGEERSQLDPropaganda Clothes Australia Pty LtdGEERSSAGEERSVICProroll Pty LtdEESSSAQALA (Australia) Pty LtdEESSNSWGEERSNSWQEII Sports Club LimitedGEERSQLDQFoam International Pty LtdGEERSQLDQuantum Energy Systems Pty LtdEESSNSWQuarry & Conveyor Equipment Pty LtdEESSQLDQueensland Plastic Compounding Pty LtdEESSQLDQuicklink Nominees Pty LtdEESSWAQuoin Technology Pty LtdGEERSNSWGEERSVICGEERSQLDGEERSSAR S & T M Evenden (Bankrupt)EESSQLDR W Recapping Pty LtdEESSVICR.A.C.E. Services Pty LtdEESSQLDRageb Pty LtdGEERSWARalf Marine Services Pty LtdEESSNSWRapid Rain Industries Pty LtdEESSNSWRapid Roofing Services Pty LtdEESSSARapp Nominees Pty LtdGEERSVICRatcliff Constructions Pty LtdEESSNSWRathname Pty LtdEESSNSWRaymarg Investments Pty LtdEESSWARazorback Computers Pty LtdEESSQLDRDD Pty LtdGEERSVICRE Blattman (Bankrupt)EESSQLDRecherche Pty LtdEESSWAReconstructors Pty LtdEESSQLDRecreational Sheetmetal Pty LtdEESSWARecruitxpo Pty LtdEESSNSWRed Rose Bakery Pty LtdEESSNSWRedback Contractor Pty LtdGEERSQLDRedlady Holdings Pty LtdEESSWAGEERSWARedline Engineering & Manufacturing Pty LtdEESSSARedline Technology Pty LtdEESSQLDRefcon Mechanical Services Pty LtdEESSVICRelectronic - Remech Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSWARenite Furniture Pty LtdEESSNSWReply2 Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWResource Trading SystemsEESSWARespond Australia Pty LtdGEERSWARevitt Cabinets Pty LtdEESSSAReyher Pty LtdEESSQLDRichard Spinosa-Cattela (Bankrupt)EESSVICRichmond Carpets Pty LtdGEERSSARingfield Nominees Pty LtdEESSVICRingwood Camera & Video House Pty LtdEESSVICRingwood Upholstery Pty LtdEESSVICRiva Fashions Pty LtdEESSVICRiverside Nursing Care Pty LtdEESSVICRiviera Canvas Company Pty LtdGEERSQLDRJ & ES Stapleton (Bankrupt)EESSQLDRNK Services Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDEESSSARoberts Automotive Pty LtdEESSQLDRobey Smash Repairs Pty LtdEESSNSWRobnell Sports Cars Pty LtdEESSVICRockhard Civil Constructions Pty LtdEESSNTRollman Pty LtdEESSNSWRonere Pty LtdGEERSNSWRoss River Homestead Pty LtdGEERSSARota Sports Pty LtdEESSNSWRotomac Engineering Pty LtdEESSNSWRowdy Constructions Pty LtdEESSQLDRowers on the RiverEESSQLDRoyalbridge Holdings Pty LtdGEERSWARR & S Manufacturing Pty LtdEESSQLDRugs Galore Australia Pty LtdEESSVICRum Runner International Pty LtdEESSQLDRural Management Services Pty LtdEESSNSWRuskin Financial Services Pty LtdGEERSVICS & S Dixon Sawmilling Pty LtdGEERSSAS Jackson Constructions Pty LtdEESSSASabin Industries Pty LtdGEERSNSWSabre Fire Protection Pty LtdEESSVICSapina Constructions Pty LtdEESSNSWSatcom Pty LtdEESSWASatellite Media GroupEESSNSWEESSVICEESSSASayso! Pty LtdEESSNSWGEERSNSWScone Fresh Meats Pty LtdEESSNSWScootmore Holdings Pty LtdGEERSQLDScott Diesel Services Pty LtdEESSQLDScott Morphett Electrical Pty LtdGEERSSASCS Refrigerated Transport Pty LtdEESSVICSE Group (Aust) Pty LtdGEERSQLDSeapac Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWSebastian Technologies Pty LtdGEERSNSWSecond Draft Pty LtdEESSQLDSecure e Solutions LtdEESSQLDGEERSQLDSecure Fire Pty LtdEESSACTSelenium Interactive Pty LtdEESSNSWSelling Out Pty LtdEESSQLDSepak Pty LtdEESSNSWShawwood Building Pty LtdEESSNSWSheds Direct Queensland Pty LtdEESSQLDSheepskin Manufacturers of Australia Pty LtdEESSSAShift R (Aust) Pty LtdGEERSQLDSignprofiles Construction Pty LtdEESSNSWSilver Lady Holdings Pty LtdEESSWASinclairs Building Group Pty LtdEESSVICSixty Pty LtdGEERSVICSJF Hotels Pty LtdEESSSASlabtek Pty LtdEESSVICSM Sheet Metal Pty LtdEESSQLDSmart Suburbs Pty LtdGEERSWASmarter Retail Solutions Pty LtdEESSNSWSmartworld Corporation LimitedGEERSWASmits Holdings Pty LtdEESSQLDSnart Holdings Pty LtdGEERSNSWSnorkel Enterprises Pty LtdEESSQLDSoftware Architects Pty LtdEESSNSWSolutions Central Pty LtdGEERSQLDSonja Leck & Kaye E Cottle (Partnership)GEERSNSWSorensen & Co Pty LtdGEERSQLDSouth East Queensland Security Pty LtdEESSQLDSouthern Air Conditioning (QLD) Pty LtdEESSQLDSouthern Air Conditioning Pty LtdEESSNSWSouthern Caterers Pty LtdGEERSWASouthern Highlands Trusses & Frames Pty LtdGEERSNSWSovereign Constructions (NSW) Pty LtdEESSNSWSP Refreshments Pty LtdEESSNSWSpaanderman Homes Pty LtdEESSWASpecialised Mine Services Pty LtdEESSNSWSpectrum Joinery Pty LtdEESSACTSpiral Industries Pty LtdEESSVICSports Australia Media Group LtdEESSNSWEESSVICSportscrazy (SA) Pty LtdEESSSASpray Alive Irrigation Systems Pty LtdEESSNSWSpringbrook Furniture Pty LtdEESSSASRG Fashion Pty LtdEESSQLDSt Marys Hardware & Glass Service Co Pty LtdEESSNSWStantons (NSW) Pty LtdEESSNSWGEERSNSWStantons (QLD) Pty LtdEESSQLDStarwhite Pty LtdGEERSQLDState Apparel Pty LtdEESSSAState of Mind Marketing Pty LtdEESSNSWStatewide Debt Collection Services Pty LtdEESSTASGEERSTASSteed Transport Pty LtdEESSQLDStephen Farley Machinery Pty LtdEESSNSWStephen Ronald Allen (Bankrupt)EESSSAStewarts Pest Managers Pty LtdEESSWASth Johnston Rd Packing Pty LtdEESSQLDStragen Pty LtdEESSNSWStrategic Superannuation Solutions Pty LtdEESSNSWStromlo Entertainment Pty LtdEESSVICStrongbuilt Furniture Co Pty LtdGEERSVICStructural & Mechanical Rigging Service Pty LtdEESSQLDSultana Bros Interstate Transport Pty LtdEESSNSWSunbuster Sportswear Pty LtdEESSNSWGEERSNSWSunet Technologies Pty LtdGEERSQLDSunraya Pty LtdEESSSASunset Kitchens Pty LtdEESSNSWSunset Pty LtdEESSNSWSuper Office Network Pty LtdGEERSQLDSupported Works Options Program IncorporatedEESSVICSupreme 3 LtdEESSVICSupreme Dyeing Pty LtdEESSVICSupreme Textile Distributors Pty LtdEESSVICSupreme Vision (Australia) Pty LtdEESSWASuran Pty LtdEESSQLDSurch Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWSurfindaweb Communications Pty LtdEESSSASwanfire Holdings Pty LtdEESSWASwell Nominees Pty LtdEESSVICSydney Auto Parts Pty LtdEESSNSWSydney Colour Centre Pty LtdEESSNSWSynateq Pty LtdGEERSTAST & K Harmes Pty LtdEESSVICTaidi Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICEESSQLDEESSSATaksah Pty LtdEESSQLDTalishan Holdings Pty LtdGEERSNSWTambo Pty LtdEESSQLDTandem Holdings Pty LtdGEERSWATanjil Valley Beef Processors Pty LtdEESSVICTap Dance Pty LtdGEERSTASTarms Australia Pty LtdEESSVICTasmanian Sandstone Pty LtdEESSTASTaswegia Pty LtdGEERSTASTawara Association LtdGEERSNSWTay Shelton Ccorbell (Bankrupt)EESSSATaylored Packaging Pty LtdEESSNSWTechnology Trade Services Pty LtdEESSNSWTelconnect Pty LtdGEERSACTGEERSNSWTelefix Group LtdGEERSNSWGEERSVICGEERSQLDGEERSWATenuta Earthmoving Pty LtdEESSQLDTenuteq International Pty LtdEESSNSWTerrace House Australia Pty LtdEESSVICTerritory Auto Clinic Pty LtdEESSNTTerritory Sheetmetal Pty LtdEESSNTThalmer Nominees Pty LtdGEERSWAThe Anderson Group Pty LtdEESSNSWThe Basic Jean Co Manufacturing Pty LtdGEERSVICThe Berwick Greenery Pty LtdGEERSVICThe Body Products Pty LtdEESSNSWThe Byte Centre Cairns Pty LtdEESSQLDThe Byte Centre Townsville Pty LtdEESSQLDThe Credit Centre Pty LtdEESSQLDThe Edge Agency Pty LtdEESSNSWThe Foothills School IncEESSWAThe Fresh Produce People Pty LtdEESSVICThe Good Oil Plantation (No.3) LtdEESSNSWThe Herb & Salad Mix Company Pty LtdGEERSQLDThe Job Club Pty LtdEESSWAThe Leichhardt Community & Services Club LimitedEESSNSWThe Lunching Pad Pty LtdGEERSWAThe Multi Media Factory Pty LtdEESSVICThe Oceanview Family TrustEESSWAThe Personnel Group Pty LtdEESSVICThe Polymedia Group Pty LtdEESSNSWThe Shellex Group Pty LtdEESSNSWThe Smart Company Pty LtdGEERSWAThe Southern Australia Shipping Company Pty LtdEESSSAThe Tanunda Club IncEESSSAThe Travel Machine Pty LtdEESSSAThe Typing Centre of Perth Pty LtdGEERSWAThe Wellhung Framing Co Pty LtdEESSNSWThe Wise Solution Pty LtdEESSQLDThe World Tiger Snake Centre Pty LtdEESSTASThermal Coatings Pty LtdEESSWAThermo Seal Pty LtdGEERSWAThomas Frederick Maher (Bankrupt)EESSNSWThomascraft 2000 Pty LtdGEERSWATHS Smash Repairs Pty LtdEESSNSWTiltform Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSSAEESSWATimac International Pty LtdEESSNSWTimber Focus International Pty LtdEESSWATimber Tec Industries LtdEESSQLDTime Energy Networks Australasia Pty LtdGEERSNSWTiptonway Pty LtdEESSQLDTMF Group Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSQLDEESSSATodstyle Pty LtdEESSWATolplay Pty LtdEESSNSWTony Cunningham and Associate (Bankrupt)EESSNSWToowoomba RSL Services Club LimitedEESSQLDTop Container Transport Pty LtdGEERSNSWGEERSQLDTopcliff Pty LtdEESSVICTopshot Enterprises Pty LtdGEERSWATotal Network Group Pty LtdGEERSQLDTouch Down Holdings (Aust) Pty LtdEESSVICTouch Up Painting Services Pty LtdEESSNSWTovemall Pty LtdEESSNSWTowering Enterprises Pty LtdGEERSVICTownson Cane Furniture Pty LtdEESSQLDTR Tightrope Pty LtdGEERSNSWTraders Designs (NSW) Pty LtdGEERSNSWTrans Aus Trailer Pty LtdEESSVICTransaero Australia Pty LtdEESSVICTravelcafe Australia Pty LtdEESSQLDTravelink International Pty LtdEESSNSWTreeleaf Landscaping & Contructions Pty LtdEESSVICTreetop Projects LimitedEESSNSWTribecca Pty LtdGEERSSATriple I Media Corporation Pty LtdEESSSATriton Secure LimitedGEERSNSWTru-Slug Lino Type ServiceEESSNSWTruth Publishing Group Pty LtdEESSVICTSS Transit Security Services Pty LtdEESSVICTullah Lakeside Chalet Pty LtdEESSTASTullamarine Smash Repairs Pty LtdEESSVICGEERSVICTwintara Pty LtdEESSVICTwo Wells Transport Pty LtdEESSSAUltimate Tyres (Vic) Pty LtdEESSVICUndera Pty LtdEESSNSWUnic Design Pty LtdEESSQLDUniframes Australia Pty LtdEESSNSWUnilap Pty LtdEESSNTUnique Travel (QLD) Pty LtdEESSQLDUnited Force Pty LtdEESSVICUnited Marble Products (QLD) Pty LtdEESSQLDUniversal Logistics Pty LtdEESSVICUNR Nominees Pty LtdEESSSAUTM Pty LtdEESSNSWUzu Air Pty LtdEESSQLDValentines Frankston Pty LtdEESSVICValentines Gold Coast Pty LtdEESSQLDValentines Kenmore Pty LtdEESSQLDValentines Maitland Pty LtdEESSNSWValentines Newcastle Pty LtdEESSNSWValentines Wheelers Hill Pty LtdEESSVICVamall Pty LtdEESSQLDVandren Pty LtdEESSQLDVanessa Ann Orders (Bankrupt)GEERSTASVanguard Interior Management Pty LtdEESSVICVass Electronics Pty LtdEESSVICVerion Pty LtdGEERSACTViclaur Pty LtdEESSNSWVicness Pty LtdEESSSAVictor Sheet Metal Co. (Aust.) Pty LtdEESSVICVictor Wardrobes Pty LtdEESSSAVictoria Knitting Mills Pty LtdEESSNSWViewset Pty LtdEESSNSWVinescape Management Services Pty LtdEESSSAVirtue Sheet Metal Pty LtdGEERSVICVitec Assembly LtdEESSWAViten Pty LtdEESSSAVokal Pty LtdEESSNSWVolcam Pty LtdEESSQLDVostech LimitedEESSWAW and J Repairs Pty LtdEESSNSWWA Spray-On Paving Pty LtdEESSWAWaitara Nominees Pty LtdGEERSWAWallace Haulage Pty LtdEESSVICWallcol Constructions Pty LtdEESSQLDWaratah Kitchens Pty LtdEESSNSWWarren Mills (Bankrupt)EESSQLDWatchman Golf Course Construction and Maintenance Pty LtdEESSNSWWatts & Hughes (Qld) Pty LtdEESSQLDWeather World Pty LtdEESSVICWebmatchit Interactive Marketing LimitedGEERSQLDWebsters Products Pty LtdEESSQLDWeller Engineering Pty LtdEESSTASWeller Forest Management Pty LtdEESSTASWellington of Melbourne Pty LtdEESSVICWentworth Commercial CollegeGEERSNSWWentworth Falls Pty LtdEESSVICWest Australian Specialised Products Pty LtdEESSWAWest Coast Building Co Pty LtdEESSWAWestcoast Marketing Pty LtdEESSVICWestend Investments Pty LtdEESSWAWesterway Constructions Pty LtdEESSNSWWheretotoday.Com Pty LtdEESSNSWEESSVICWhite and White Pty LtdEESSNSWWhyalla Sheetmetal and Tank Making Service Pty LtdEESSSAWhydah Solutions Pty LtdEESSVICWillarton Pty LtdEESSVICWilliam Robert Johnson (Bankrupt)EESSNSWWilltara Constructions Pty LtdEESSNSWWillys Bakery Pty LtdEESSVICWindows Warehouse & Builders Direct Pty LtdGEERSQLDWisdom Assets Pty LtdEESSWAWishart Smash Repairs Pty LtdEESSQLDWood Property Investments Pty LtdEESSQLDWoolcott Court Management Pty LtdEESSNSWGEERSNSWWoolshed Trading Co Pty LtdEESSSAWorld Wide Web Institute of Australia Pty LtdEESSVICWRB Transport Services Pty LtdEESSSAWyandra Australia Pty LtdEESSQLDWyndham Collision Centre Pty LtdEESSNSWXantrak Pty LtdGEERSQLDXstra Communications & Cabling Pty LtdEESSNTY-Micro Pty LtdEESSWAYorke Peninsula Plumbing & Gas Pty LtdEESSSAYost Technologies Pty LtdEESSNSWYvonne Pickworth Fashion Sales Pty LtdEESSVICZeee Industries Pty LtdEESSNSWZegir Pty LtdEESSWAZenas Sharetrading LtdEESSNSW5738(Question No. 532)5325738Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 18 June 2002:(1) What were the (a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditures of the Australian Customs Service (ACS) in all its functions, including excise and duties collection, industry protection, border patrol and other statutory functions, during the 38th and 39th Commonwealth Parliaments?(2) Have cost cutting measures implemented during the 38th and 39th Parliaments impacted upon border protection activities of the ACS; if not, has it been able to maintain or enhance its pre-38 th Parliament service levels and operational strength.5739Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The answer to the first question is summarised in the tables below.Term of the 38th Commonwealth Parliament: 1996 to 1998 *1997*1998Running CostAdministeredRunning Cost AdministeredBudget (000's)$512,091 (v)$1,389,562$546,969 (v)$1,448,215Actual (000's)$473,7031,469,142$527,185$1.446,016*Denotes financial years (period ending 30 June 1997 & 30 June 1998).Term -of the 39th Commonwealth Parliament: 1998 to 2001 *1999*2000*2001Running-CostAdminDeptAdminDeptAdBudget (000's)$570,345 (v)$1,513,174$551,735$260$624,573$260Actual (000,8)$544,593$313,303 (iii)$565,820($2810)$617,454$4,655*Denotes financial years (period ending 30 June 1999, 30 June 2000 & 30 June 2001).Notes from Budgets and Actuals: (i) Actual Expenditure includes departmental and administered costs. (ii) Budget data is sourced from the PBS/PAES and actual data is sourced from the Annual Reports for the 38th and 39th Commonwealth Parliaments. (iii) In February 1999, responsibility for administration of excise functions was transferred to the Australian Taxation Office and in April 1999, responsibility for a number of industry assistance schemes was transferred to Industry, Science and Resources. The reduction in Administered expenses from 1999 onwards is the direct result of the transfer of these functions to other departments. (iv) Budget and actual expenditure for financial year ended 30 June 1999 reflects the transfer of core excise functions to the Australian Taxation Office. (v) For comparison purposes, budget figures have been amended to include resources received free of charge in financial years ended 30 June 1997, 1998 and 1999. (vi) Valid comparisons are difficult to make between cash and accrual appropriations. Caution should be exercised in using these budget figures as they contain adjustments for comparison purposes such as the inclusion of actual resources received free of charge from 1997 to 1999.(2) No. During the 38th and 39th Commonwealth Parliaments, Customs received significant funding injections for the National Illicit Drug Strategy (NIDS), the Technology Upgrade Program, the New Marine Fleet, Tough on Drugs, the Coastwatch National Surveillance Centre, increased funding to prevent foot and mouth disease and other diseases from reaching Australia, and has been able to expand operational strength.5739(Question No. 548)5485739Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 18 June 2002:(1) What sum of Commonwealth funding was spent on advertising the (a) Natural Heritage Trust and (b) the Envirofund in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999, (v) 2000, (vi) 2001, and (vii) 2002.(2) What is the breakdown of Commonwealth expenditure on advertising in (a) regional and rural media and (b) metropolitan media, between the various types of media, including (i) television, (ii) outdoor advertising, (iii) radio and (iv) print in (A) 1996, (B) 1997, (C) 1998, (D) 1999, (E) 2000, (F) 2001 and (G) 2002.(3) Who decides which media outlets are chosen for advertising the Natural Heritage Trust and the Envirofund and what selection process is followed.5740Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The first public information campaign for the Natural Heritage Trust commenced in 1998 and figures for previous years are therefore not available. A summary of Natural Heritage Trust advertising costs is as: 1998-991999-002000-012001-02$1,740,000$2,635,000$3,494,891$2,649,485**The Australian Government Envirofund was launched in April 2002, and advertising expenditure this year has totalled $467,940.(2) A breakdown of Commonwealth expenditure on advertising for this campaign is set out below. This has been national television advertising and there has been no weighting to metropolitan and regional areas. 1998-991999-002000-012001-02(i) television$1,740,000$2,515,000$3,494,891$2,090,290(ii) outdoorNilNilNilNil(iii) radioNilNilNil$43,000(iv) printNil$120,000Nil$484,195(v) Internet$32,000(3) Mitchell Media currently holds the contract for the placement of all Commonwealth Government campaign advertising. For each campaign they prepare a media plan setting out proposed advertising mediums, dates and costs. Following acceptance by the Department and approval of the Communications Strategy, this media plan is considered and approved by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications.5740(Question No. 612)6125740George, Jennie, MPMs GeorgeJH5ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 26 June 2002:(1) How many recipients of (a) aged pensions, (b) disability support pensions, (c) youth allowance and (d) Newstart allowance reside in the electoral division of Throsby.(2) How many recipients of each benefit referred to in part (1) reside in each post-code area within the electorate division of Throsby.5740Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: PostcodeAge PensionDisability Support PensionNewstart AllowanceYouth AllowanceTotal250222569807953534384250510293293271081793250611494503472562202252612324033282162179252713495924493562746252833481491118157065902529165757141925829052530277310818135325199Total14793589746592649279985740(Question No. 628)6285740Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek83MSydneyALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 26 June 2002:Has the Commonwealth ever provided the States with any designated funding to assist people living with HIV/AIDS to secure accommodation in the private rental market; if so, (a) is such funding ongoing and (b) what is the sum.5741Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:There is no Commonwealth designated funding under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) to the States to assist people living with HIV/AIDS to secure accommodation in the private rental market.5741(Question No. 634)6345741Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 27 June 2002:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2798 (Hansard, 27 September 2001, page 31818), (a) how many indigenous Australians have commenced employment on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway project, (b) what proportion of these Australians were employed under the Indigenous Employment Policy referred to in his answer or other Commonwealth programs and (c) what companies have employed these people.(2) How many indigenous Australians are currently employed on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, and under which programs and by which companies are they employed.(3) What sum has the Commonwealth spent under the Indigenous Employment Policy program, or any other program, to encourage the employment, training and skill development of indigenous Australians on the Alice Springs to Darwin rail project.(4) What other measures has the Commonwealth taken to monitor, promote or otherwise increase the rate of employment, training and skill development of indigenous Australians on the Alice Springs to Darwin rail project.(5) What measures has the Commonwealth taken to ensure indigenous Australians employed on the Alice Springs to Darwin rail project find employment after the project is completed using the skills they have acquired and to assess or to provide additional skills needed to find employment after the project is completed.5741Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The ADrail Structured Training and Employment Project referred to in my answer to question No. 2798 did not eventuate.The following table provides information about the number of Indigenous Australians currently employed on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway project where there is funding from the Indigenous Employment Policy. CompanyNumber employedElement of Indigenous Employment PolicyAustrak NT Pty Ltd40Structured Training and Employment ProjectMorris Corporation Pty Ltd 29Structured Training and Employment ProjectADrail5Wage AssistanceADrail has advised my Department that they and their subcontractors employ 50 Indigenous Australians. This includes the five mentioned above who are employed using Wage Assistance. The remaining 45 are not supported through Indigenous Employment Policy (b) See (1)(a)(c) See (1)(a)(2) See (1)(a)(3) My Department has expended around $440,000 on the rail project under the Indigenous Employment Policy.(4) Officers from my Department have met with major contractors to encourage employment of Indigenous Australians on the rail project and to promote the use of Indigenous Employment Policy funding.(5) The Northern Territory office of my Department is negotiating with the Northern Lands Council to formalise strategies and mechanisms designed to assist Indigenous people who are employed on the railway project to find continuing employment when the project is completed. Ongoing employment opportunities could include the mining industry and the natural gas plant and pipeline. All Indigenous Employment Policy projects encourage retention and future employability. Many Indigenous Australians will be able to use the skills and experience they have gained through working on the rail project to move to new jobs without any additional Commonwealth assistance.Indigenous Australians who have finished working on the railway will be eligible to receive assistance through Indigenous Employment Policy funding. They may also be eligible to access Job Network services to help them find further employment.