2002-08-274013REPS574302002-08-27—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice5743574314:01:005743Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and it concerns the government's family payments system. Minister, are you aware that a family receiving family tax benefit A and B, who has provided three new estimates of income for each partner immediately when changes in income have occurred during the year, and whose final estimates of income are around $2,000 lower than their estimate, can still incur a debt of $1,940? Minister, why won't you change the rules so that parents who have played by the rules are not left with such a large debt—a debt that they have not budgeted for?5743Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—To address the member for Lilley's question: in the last week or so we have very clearly explained the family tax benefit system to the opposition. I would like to reiterate that Centrelink have been running a communication campaign for quite some time, particularly for the Australian public, emphasising to Australian families—bear in mind that they are receiving more payments under this government than they ever did under the ALP government—that a requirement of the family tax benefit system, which is part of the tax act, is that if there is a change in their circumstances they must notify Centrelink of that change. If Australian families overestimate their income at the end of the year, we have given them the opportunity for the first time ever through the reconciliation process to reconcile and receive a top-up payment. We have been quite open and transparent about this.Family tax benefit part A and B, which is obviously paid either to sole parents or to the parent who is not working, is an incentive or a reward for those who choose to stay at home. As far as the family tax benefit operation is concerned, the member for Lilley may not realise that I am not the minister responsible for that area. As to the family tax benefit, the government is determined to see more money going to Australian families at the end of the day.The onus is on Australian families to give accurate estimations of their income. There have been some examples given. The member for Lilley recently trotted out an example of where a family estimated their income at maybe $20,000 in the first four or five months—they made a few variations. If there is an income of $50,000 at the end of 12 months, there is a major change in the amount of money to which they are entitled. I do not think the Australian public would be critical of the fact that it is means tested and that there is a requirement of an accurate estimation, and that was the provision that we put into the act.574314:05:005743May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a graph prepared by the opposition shadow minister, the member for Gellibrand, purporting to show an $800 cut in funding per child-care place since 1996? Is this an accurate representation of government funding?5743Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I thank the member for McPherson for her very keen interest in the coalition's child-care policies. In particular, it is important to clarify the record. I believe there was some misrepresentation of the facts yesterday by the member for Gellibrand. Perhaps a word of advice: I hope you do not take a leaf or a lily out of the member for Lilley's usage when he quotes these erroneous figures, because I know you are better than that. I think it is important—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Mr Speaker, I know you are an excellent advocate when it comes to child care. But I certainly think that this is an opportunity, as the member for McPherson said, to outline some of the misrepresentation—maybe unknowingly—that the member for Gellibrand gave to the parliament yesterday.The amount of money going to child care this year, like over the next four years, is at record levels. But we do not treat all child-care places the same, and they are not. Long day care centres operate for about 50 hours per week, with the average fee at around $187. After school care services operate, as you well know, for about 15 hours a week, and the average payment is $45.20. So it is clear nonsense to compare one child-care place with another and to say there has been a reduction in the amount of money going to those families using CCB or child care. Let me explain the arithmetic a little bit more for your benefit. Since 1996, outside school hours care places have increased by over 170,000. They make up 46 per cent of the places today. In 1996, they made up 23 per cent. There is a greater proportion of people using Commonwealth funded child care in the area of outside school hours care, which I am glad you showed some interest in yesterday. It is inevitable, when you look at your graph—which is incorrect—to state that we are spending less money on child care. These are the facts. Here is the actual amount, and this is you down here and we are here.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Mr Speaker, I just could not help myself. It is a very good example of more money going towards child care than ever before. Here is another graph. It the amount of CCB—Opposition members interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—I am sorry, Mr Speaker. This is an important point, because this debate is being misconstrued by means of erroneous graphs that were put into the parliament yesterday. I am quite happy to table these for your benefit, and later today we will be having an MPI debate on this. That will be a great opportunity for us to further clarify the wonderful job we are doing in the area of child care. I want to reiterate: we are spending $8 billion in the next four years. How much did you spend in the four years up to 1996? How much was it? It was $3.325 billion. We are spending 70 per cent more than Labor did in their last six years in office. If you do not believe me, ask the ABS. The ABS have stated that, for the first time, child-care costs have gone down by nine per cent. It is cheaper for families today to get some type of funded place through the child-care benefit than it ever has been before, and the rate of increase of fees is half what it was when the ALP were last in government. Child care, without question, has been a signature project for this government. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Gellibrand.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Do you support the Bulldogs?83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—The AFL Bulldogs, though.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Gellibrand does not have the call. The member for Gellibrand will resume her seat. The member for Gellibrand was seeking the call, and she knows better than to act as she just did.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—Mr Speaker, given the comments of the minister, I seek leave to table the minister's department's figures.Leave granted.574414:11:005744Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, and it again concerns family payment. Minister, why won't you allow the 1.2 million parents who receive family tax benefit B, and who are at risk of large end-of-year debts if they return to work, to have their entitlements reconciled by Centrelink on a quarterly basis? Minister, why won't you, as the first step, change your family payment rules that leave parents who play by your rules with large debts they have not budgeted for?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Before I recognise the minister, I remind him and the member for Lilley that comments in the House should be directed through the chair. Phrases like `why won't you' would be more appropriately put as `why won't the minister'. The minister should equally resist making references to `you'. I call the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—It's a duckathon!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Three ducks in a row!5744Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I have the chief gobbler next to me! I would like to reiterate—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—He's calling the Prime Minister a gobbler!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am having a great deal of difficulty recognising the member for Batman because of the discourtesy being shown by the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Batman.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Only a few moments ago, you drew to attention the member for Gellibrand for the way she conducted herself at the dispatch box. I ask for equal treatment.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister knows that his comments were every bit as inappropriate as the comments made by the member for Gellibrand.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—He should withdraw.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I had no such request made of the member for Gellibrand. I want no further assistance from those on my left.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister has just described the Prime Minister as a gobbler. It is clearly—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat or I will deal with him.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—It can only get better from here, Larry!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—We're on this side of the chamber, my friend.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I will tolerate no further remarks like that from the minister or from anyone else at the dispatch box. The minister has the call. He will come to the question.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—I would like to reiterate part of my previous answer. The family tax benefit system, which we introduced, was I note also supported by the member for Lilley when it was introduced over two years ago. Not only was it a system whereby families got paid significantly more money but it also had flexibility built in it, whether they received their family tax benefit on a fortnightly basis, whether they received it at the end through a reconciliation process—and as I mentioned before that is where the top-up payment came from—or whether it was through arrangements that were part of the taxation system. We are aware that as part of the government's communication strategy, which I believe has been quite extensive, that there may still be some families who may not fully understand the system and—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a very specific question about allowing payments to be reconciled by Centrelink quarterly. The minister has not said anything about the question.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I had heard what the minister was saying. It was related to family payments.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—As I mentioned before, if there are ways within the existing legislation, as I have been advised, that we can help to make it more flexible for Australian families then the government will look at them.574514:16:005745Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the government's success in breaking people-smuggling rings? What role has the government's focus on regional cooperation played in this process?5745Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Page for his question and recognise the interest he shows in this important issue. As I said yesterday in answer to another question, the government have worked very hard on developing appropriate regional arrangements to counter people-smuggling and in recent months we have had a good deal of success. Yesterday the Bangkok Criminal Court handed down a very significant judgment against alleged people smuggler Hassan Ayoub. Mr Ayoub has 15 days in which to appeal this judgment, but it is noteworthy that the judgment found that he could be extradited to Australia where he could face 13 charges under the Commonwealth Migration Act and, if convicted, Mr Ayoub could face a very substantial sentence. The government believes that Ayoub is an important figure in organised criminal people-smuggling networks. He is linked to attempts to send almost 400 asylum seekers illegally from Indonesia to Australia between December 2000 and April 2001.This judgment by the Bangkok Criminal Court follows close cooperation between officers at the Australian Embassy in Bangkok, including the ambassador, the Australian Federal Police and their Thai and, importantly, their Cambodian counterparts. This is not just a story of cooperation with Thailand; it is also a story of cooperation with Cambodia. Cambodia played a vital role in this case, having originally arrested Ayoub and imprisoned him on immigration related offences before he was deported from Cambodia through Thailand.This is yet another example of the very close cooperation between the Australian government and, in this instance, Thailand in dealing with people-smuggling. Thailand is the chair of what is called the second ad hoc experts group, which was established at the Bali conference in February this year. It is looking at the specific issue of the criminalisation of people-smuggling, which is an important issue in the region, and as well as law enforcement.Australian authorities have sought the extradition from Thailand of another prominent alleged people smuggler—Al-Jenabi. This case is currently before the courts. Efforts to ensure that people-smuggling does not continue in the region will be further assisted when a number of countries have introduced immigration legislation, including penalties for people-smuggling. Significantly, I note that two countries are drafting such legislation: Indonesia and Pakistan. When the legislation comes into force it will obviously be yet another weapon that can be used against the people smugglers.This important case, the Ayoub case, is a very significant symbol of the strength of regional cooperation which has now developed to address people-smuggling. I think this government can claim a very great degree of credit for the efforts it has made to crack down on that ugly trade.574614:20:005746Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it refers to the government's family payments system. Prime Minister, are you aware of the growing chorus joining Labor in opposition to the hardship faced by honest families under your flawed family payments system, including from your backbench and from your Deputy Prime Minister? Why can't you devise a system that pays families the correct amount at the correct time and does not innocently slug them at the end of the year with massive debts, including consideration of quarterly reconciliations of payments?5746Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The system that was introduced when the new taxation was introduced consolidated a number of family payments and family tax benefits into a smaller number. They were consolidated into family tax A, which was a payment on a means tested basis for parents of all children under a certain age. Family tax B was targeted to single-income families and was essentially a combination of the old dependent spouse rebate plus the additional loading that had been introduced as part of our tax policy in the 1996 election campaign. And the child-care benefits were consolidated into the child-care payment.In the course of doing that, the method of calculating was shifted from a fortnightly basis in relation to the family payments to an annual basis according to taxable income. As a consequence of that, it was always understood and it was always the intention that an estimate of income would be given at the beginning—as time went by, if somebody's income went up, that increase should be notified; if their income went down, that change should be notified—and there would be a reconciliation at the end of the year.As I understand it, what is occurring in some cases is that people are notifying a change—an increase in their income—which may trigger a reduction in their entitlement. The entitlement is being adjusted in relation to the remainder of the year, but it is not being retroactively adjusted to capture the overpayment that has occurred during the first half of the year.DT4Crean, Simon, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—No, I am responding very directly to the Leader of the Opposition's question. If that is the basis of the problem—and I have had some discussions with colleagues about this—it may be possible to fix that administratively. If it is not possible to fix it administratively, then I assume we will have the support of the opposition to fix it legislatively. The other thing in the course of examining the system that I think would help it, would improve it, would be to sever the automatic link under the existing legislation between family tax benefit A and family tax benefit B, whereby you have to take either both of them fortnightly or both of them at the end of the year rather than opting for one fortnightly and one at the end of the year. Having looked at it and seen it operating, I think there might be some merit in allowing people who get family tax benefit B as well as family tax benefit A to have the choice of taking the two.All of these things are said against the background of the basis of the system being that, if you get overpaid, you have to pay it back, and if you get underpaid at the end of the year, you should get a top-up payment. We are not in a position—as much as one would like to—to offer any increases in the benefits. I would remind the parliament and I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that what we are talking about here is the way in which an overpayment is repaid. We are not talking about taking money out of people's pockets; we are talking about the way in which an overpayment is repaid. We are not talking about anything else. It has always been understood that, if you are overpaid, it is only reasonable that, on proper terms, you pay it back. 84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie—Proper terms!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think it is proper terms: if you are owed some money by the Commonwealth and you owe the Commonwealth money, it is only reasonable that the two be off set. That is a principle that the Australian Labor Party upheld. The Labor Party upheld it. I did not hear the Labor Party condemning that principle when they were in office. Sure, if there are ways in which the system after two years of operation can be made to work with greater flexibility, I am interested in looking at that—and I assume that we will have the constructive support of the opposition if any legislation is needed. But let me make it clear: we are not in a position to increase the payments; we are not. We would like to, but we are not at present in a budget position to increase the payments. In any event, they are massive increases on what obtained 6½ years ago.The other point I would simply make is that what is involved here is not whether people should have to repay money they have been overpaid but the way in which it should be repaid. That is a simple principle and it does not alter in any way the very effective way in which Australian families have been rewarded by this new system.574714:26:005747Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of initiatives taken to minimise processing times for people claiming asylum? Is the minister aware of any other policies in relation to this issue?5747Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Pearce for her question. I know of her genuine interest and concern that issues involving asylum seekers should be resolved quickly and that detention should be for the shortest possible time. It is an ideal opportunity, I think, to explain some of the complexities associated with this issue and to get a sense of proportion and perspective about it.On 21 August there were only four unauthorised boat arrivals awaiting a primary decision on a protection claim, and all those were awaiting a decision because there were character issues that needed to be determined. So, when we are talking about processing, it is important to understand what it is we are talking about. If we are talking about processing by the immigration department, the processing has been undertaken. If people still remain in detention, it is because there are some other forms of processing that need to be undertaken; that is, processing by a review tribunal, processing of appeals by courts and arrangements to remove people who may have no entitlement to be here—who are not refugees. We have been endeavouring to address all of those areas, and primary decision-making has been expedited very considerably. So, if people arrive in Australia with a genuine intention of pursuing asylum claims with their documents of identity which can give you a clear picture of who they are and where they are from, processing is undertaken in four to six weeks. When you have no documents it can take longer, because there are issues of identity to be dealt with, issues of credibility and the like.On the review side, what have we been doing? We have certainly implemented a range of legislative initiatives. Some of them took a while to get up, particularly the privative clause. We introduced a 35-day time limit on applications. We sought to limit access to class actions because of the impact that they could have in allowing people who were simply wanting to remain here to get on the in and get a bridging visa offered. We asserted that the codes of procedures for decision makers ought to have primacy. Additionally, we have made use of federal magistrates, and we have continued to work cooperatively with the Federal Court to find ways of streamlining its review processes. The time for resolution of matters within the Federal Court has dropped from 264 days to 154 days last year as a result of the measures that we have been implementing. That is a reduction of almost four months.I am interested in other policies. I went back to try to find where there were other policies. I had to go back some way because there have not been any policies forthcoming from the opposition while they have been in opposition. But I did find a press release from Senator Nick Bolkus, in which he was referring to some comments of a chief justice. I must say that nothing is new, to find people wanting to express views.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—I always thought you weren't meant to do that.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I have to be very careful, Prime Minister. I am only going to quote somebody else. The press release states:The Chief Justice of the Family Court has clearly not checked his facts before making comments on children in detention the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Senator Nick Bolkus said today.“Ill-informed and factually inaccurate statements are damaging to the office of the Chief Justice of the Family Court,” Senator Bolkus said.“To describe the Port Hedland centre as a `virtual concentration camp' is nothing short of emotional and sensationalist nonsense. The centre at Port Hedland is designed to keep family units together with appropriate comfort and dignity while they remain in detention. In particular, an extensive range of high level medical and educational services is provided,” Senator Bolkus said.His description—and again I think he was speaking about what the judge had to say— of the northwest of Australia as `wilderness and remote' typifies an all too common view by people out of touch with mainstream Australia that anywhere outside metropolitan Sydney or Melbourne is not civilised,” Senator Bolkus said.He went on to say:“There are already provisions under the law to release minors from detention, where it is in the best interests of the child and this has been done. There can be no excuse for such a senior member of the judiciary to be ignorant of such a basic point.He also had some comments to make about the question of processing. He said:The real delay in the refugee determination process occurs when failed applicants decide to pursue litigation. It is the litigation process before the courts that can take years, not the merits determination process.”To those comments, I could only say, `Amen.'574814:33:005748Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it follows his answer to the question I asked previously. Given his answer and his recognition of the need to redesign the family payments system, I ask: given the role of the Minister for Family and Community Services in designing and promoting this particular policy disaster, as well as her bungled handling of the cut to disability support payments, what confidence can Australian families have that she won't bungle the next job that you give her? I further ask: given that you have sought Labor's help in redesigning the family payments system, do you undertake to consult Labor in that redesign?5749Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As to the first part of the question, I have full confidence in the Minister for Family and Community Services. If recollection serves me correctly, a lot of the legislative work in relation to this issue was put in place before she assumed her current duties, so I think that ought to be borne in mind.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition! The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am following the point of order dictum of the member for Lilley. I am going directly to the very question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. He asked me to express confidence in the minister. I do. She is a competent, robust and articulate minister in whom I have very great confidence.A government member—Don't take her on!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I will stand aside and let the Leader of the Opposition have a go.Government members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—They've got us on the ropes again. In relation to the second part of the question, I dared to assume in the earlier answer from the attitude being taken by the opposition that, if the opposition were concerned about a lack of flexibility in one aspect of the operation of the system and if it were necessary to legislate in order to give greater flexibility, they would not oppose that legislation. If the opposition were to choose to oppose that legislation as they opposed the revenue fountainhead of the increased family benefits—namely, tax reform—then that would be on their heads. But I cannot imagine that, even an opposition as poorly led as this one—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The question was: will he consult us—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was responding to the question. The Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I was making an assumption—and perhaps it was a heroic assumption—that the opposition would behave logically as well as reasonably. I think that, given the track record of this opposition leader, those assumptions are supremely heroic.574914:37:005749Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen the Reserve Bank's announcement today on a final standard for designated credit card schemes? Can the Treasurer advise the government's response.5749Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question. When the government reformed the financial system coming out of the Wallis report, we introduced the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act and the Payment System Board. Under that act, which was passed in 1998, the Reserve Bank has the capacity to designate a payment system if it believes that that is in the public interest. In April 2001, the Reserve Bank designated the Visa, Mastercard and Bankcard schemes as being subject to regulation under that act and, since then, has been working towards a standard to regulate the fees which the banks charge each other in operating this payment system.Today the final report was handed down and three substantive recommendations have been made. The first is that the interchange fee, which is currently around 0.95 per cent of the value of each credit card transaction, be reduced and set according to a methodology which will bring it down to 0.55 to 0.6 per cent—a reduction of about 40 per cent in interchange fees that the banks charge each other under these credit card systems. Based on the annual current revenue, it is estimated that this will reduce interchange fees which are charged by banks by $300 million to $400 million per annum. I call on the Australian banks to accept that decision and, as a consequence, to allow the users of credit cards the value of that reduction in their fees, which is estimated at $300 million to $400 million once the reforms take effect.The second recommendation relates to the common practice, even where expensive forms of credit are used under what is called the no-surcharge rule, for the costs of that to be recovered through prices against all consumers, even if they are not using credit card schemes. The bank's report today has called for abolition of that rule so that people who are not using an expensive credit card do not necessarily have to bear the costs of those who do. We have estimated that this should allow competitive pricing and, based on experience in the United Kingdom and the strong competitiveness of the Australian retail sector, the government does not expect that surcharging for credit will be widespread. The third recommendation which has been made as part of this landmark report is to open up the credit card system to even greater competition—that is, once somebody is approved for prudential reasons by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, they can have access to that system as a new competitor. This will allow new competitors other than banks to come in, with the prospect that they will give better service or lower charges, just as happened when the government opened up the mortgage market to mortgage originators who came in and gave new competition to the banks. These are very important reforms which will make our system more competitive. Also, there has been a suspicion in the past that banks have been directing customers to the use of credit because it is an expensive instrument when they could be promoting in preference debit cards, which are a less expensive form of financing. If these reforms have the effect of reducing the preference that the banks have had hitherto for directing their customers to credit cards—which are an expensive form of financing—that, too, will be a welcome thing. These are very significant reforms flowing from the government's response to the Wallis inquiry and government members welcome these reforms. We believe that all of the reforms should take place simultaneously—that is, on 1 July 2003—and that is a point I will be putting to the Payment System Board and the Reserve Bank as part of our response. Strangely enough, we have even had a statement from the ALP welcoming these changes—one of the few times I have ever seen the ALP support a government initiative. We will be waiting to see whetheror not that will last until the time of introduction. These reforms, I expect, will be opposed by the credit card issuers—Mastercard and Visa. I understand that they do not support these recommendations; no doubt, they will be putting that view. Government members welcome these reforms. If the ALP can maintain its support in relation to these matters, we expect that good reforms arising out of the government's changes—which will make our system more competitive and should give benefits to consumers—will be implemented as a result of good policy.575014:43:005750Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister and follows his backdown on family payments. Prime Minister, if, as you have indicated, you are going to review the way debts are repaid, will you refund families for the moneys stripped from their tax returns so that they can repay that debt gradually? If not, why not?5750Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The request made by the member for Lilley flies completely in the face of the basis of everything I said—that is that, if people were overpaid money, they should pay it back. It is as simple as that.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Point of order, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call. The member for Lilley will resume his seat.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—No, I won't.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lilley! I will not tolerate that sort of exhibition in the chamber.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is based upon the simple proposition that if, at the end of the year at the time of reconciliation, you are found to owe the Commonwealth something, that should be paid back; if, at the end of the year at the time of reconciliation, the Commonwealth is found to owe you something, that should be paid to you. What I have said—and I repeat it—is that, if there is a capacity under the existing law to provide greater flexibility in relation to that, we will have a look at it. But the idea of revisiting past arrangements is unrealistic and contrary to what I have said.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was about whether or not people would be able to repay their debt gradually.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes.575114:45:005751Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House on the current status of the government's AusLink proposal? Are there any alternatives to the government's policy?5751Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question and note his very real interest. He chairs the relevant committee that, on behalf of the coalition, works very closely with me and Wilson Tuckey in taking forward reforms and initiatives for rural and regional Australia. AusLink is our plan for a more carefully thought through and integrated approach to infrastructure planning nationally. It has been widely welcomed by most stakeholders who recognise that we do need a better, higher performing and integrated national land transport network. The current approach to transport planning, which it has to be said is a relic left over from the last century, will simply not meet the challenges of the future—with a doubling of the transport task over the next 15 to 20 years, with greater expectations in terms of amenity and with the real issues we will face with urban congestion, fuel consumption and, of course, environmental problems. A far better approach is needed.At the recent Australian Transport Council meeting in Auckland I discussed AusLink with my state and territory ministerial colleagues, who had—I do not think it is any secret—expressed some interest but at times concerns about my approach. We also met with the Australian Local Government Association, which has been a strong supporter of a better way forward. I am delighted to inform the House that we have agreed to move forward collaboratively, and I have agreed to convene a special meeting of the ATC and the Australian Logistics Council prior to finalisation of the AusLink green paper. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—I get an interjection from my opposite number, who says `another backflip'. It is just the opposite.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will not respond to interjections.4K4Mr ANDERSON—We are making real progress for the first time in this country towards an integrated national plan for transport. AusLink will form the basis for forging improved cross-modal links, for improving logistics and for making our national transport network far more efficient and more effective as a driver and an enabler for economic growth in the future. In a sense, that is the most important aspect of this. We are breaking the sort of narrow next-election focused cycle in this country. Just as we have gone beyond the next electoral cycle in setting the country up for future economic growth with economic reforms and industrial relations reforms, and just as the Treasurer and the government have taken us forward with the Intergenerational Report and are seeking to set the country up for an ageing population and the policy decisions that are needed there, in transport we are moving to ensure that our network meets the future needs of the nation both as an enabler and a driver of economic growth. Indeed, logistics now account for a massive nine per cent of the total economy. We have to get it right. We will be releasing a green paper shortly, followed by a white paper in April or so next year, followed by a new intergovernmental agreement. I was asked about alternative policies. For a long time I did not think we had one, because the member for Batman's position on this was that we had stolen one of their policies. I am not quite sure how we managed that, because I have not seen any for a long time. For a long time the member for Batman claimed that all we had done was lift Labor policy. However, he has now opened up a front of differentiation: he is saying that, although we are talking here about Commonwealth money, the Commonwealth should not have the final decision on how Commonwealth transport dollars are actually allocated. I find that absurd until I contemplate that, of course, in government the member for Batman would have to go and ask the permission of the ACTU first.575214:49:005752Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you informed your Minister for Family and Community Services of the changes to the family payment system which you have announced in here today? If so, why was the minister as recently as noon today still holding the line, saying that there was no need to change it? Prime Minister, isn't your announcement today of change just another example of policy on the run?5752Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have not announced any change of policy; I have just said that we will examine whether, consistent with the existing policy, there can be more flexibility in relation to the payments. I caution the Leader of the Opposition about using the expression `policy on the run'. I seem to remember his predecessor mouthing that platitude about a year or more ago.575214:50:005752Dutton, Peter, MPMr DUTTON00AKIDicksonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, would you inform the House why the government is committed to exempting small business from the unfair dismissal laws? Are there any alternative policies? Minister, how is the union opposition to reform hindering job creation by small business?5752Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Dickson for his question and for the concern he has to boost job creation by small business in his electorate. This government wants to completely exempt small business from the operation of the unfair dismissal laws because, as survey after survey has shown, fear of an unfair dismissal claim is preventing the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs. A recent survey by the Restaurant and Catering Association, which has been presented to a Senate committee, shows that 38 per cent of businesses in that industry have had to defend an unfair dismissal claim in the last three years. On average, defending those claims has cost those businesses nearly $4,000 per claim and, worse, has taken up on average 63 hours of management time per claim.There is a problem here, and at last the opposition have acknowledged it through the member for Hotham's bill. But on this issue the opposition have to be the ultimate slow learners. No fewer than 21 times in the last six years has this government tried to reform the unfair dismissal laws—and 21 times we have been opposed by members opposite. Twenty-one times we have proposed reform, and 21 times it has been opposed by members opposite. When it comes to real reform, opposition intransigence is likely to just get worse as union influence grows under the Hawke-Wran recommendations. The Hawke-Wran report said: the Party nationally should require each MP to enter into a formal ongoing consultative process with union activists—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Consistently in this fortnight of sittings you have ruled that comments about the Hawke-Wran review are not relevant to matters concerning industrial relations as in the sort of question that has been asked by the member for Dickson. I would ask you to bring the minister to order; he is deliberately defying your previous rulings.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. The member for Werriwa is right about my consistency, but this question sought from the minister an opinion about whether or not union action was hindering the reform he was seeking. EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Opposition intransigence is going to get worse as the unions get more influence under the Hawke-Wran report, because it requires that each MP should: enter into a formal ongoing consultative process with union activists in their electorate [These] new arrangements could take the form of a regular monthly or quarterly session open to all union activists No consultation with small businesses, but monthly consultations with union activists.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order relating to relevance. The minister has now gone on at length about proposals from the Hawke-Wran committee, which have nothing to do with the question that was asked or the question that you referred to in your previous ruling. So would you please sit him down and bring him to order.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley has the same right as everyone else to raise a point of order. But he seems to have a very short memory about the fact that I had earlier warned him for anything that looks like a reflection on the chair. The minister is responding to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Then there is the fact that the union block vote at national conferences is going to increase from zero per cent to 50 per cent.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. By what conceivable interpretation of the standing orders of relevance can the composition of the national conference of the Labor Party be relevant to the question the minister was asked? I accept your ruling on the previous ones, although I thought you were being extremely generous to the minister, but certainly he has gone beyond the bounds of generosity now.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser is aware that I have been consistent with my rulings. I invite the minister to respond to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, thank you for that. If members opposite want to demonstrate that the unions are no longer relevant, they will get serious about this issue, they will get serious about helping small business and they will support the government's fair dismissal bill.575314:56:005753Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, given your earlier answer on credit card interchange fees and your call to banks to fully pass on the $300 million to $400 million savings to Australian consumers, will you give special transitional powers to the ACCC to ensure that these benefits do flow to consumers rather than to banks or retailers?5753Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government put in place the process which has led to today's decision. I have called on the banks to accept that decision and to pass it on, and I expect that that will be done. The government is certainly putting in place something that had never been contemplated under Labor in order to give benefit to the consumer. We do not believe that the credit card interchange fees should be cut for the benefit of banks. Obviously, the banks will not like it; it is $350 million to $400 million. We believe it should be done for the consumer, and that is why we have put this in place and why we have welcomed the decision. I expect that there will be opposition to this decision, as I said earlier, from some of the credit card providers. But we believe that this is important in the interests of consumers and that it should be passed on, and we welcome the decision.575314:58:005753Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister advise the House of the growth in opportunities under this government for the 70 per cent of young people who do not go straight to university from school? Is the minister aware of other statements or policies in this important area?5753Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for Fairfax for his longstanding commitment to apprentices and training and, in particular, his support of Terry Welch in Welch Contracting—25 years of supporting young people in the building industry and offering apprenticeships and training to them in Maroochydore. There are currently 334,000 Australians engaged in apprenticeships and training. Some 58 per cent of them are under the age of 25 and they are spread across 500 occupations. Australia, at 2.1 per cent of the working age population in terms of apprenticeship penetration, now has the fourth highest concentration in the world. In fact, one-third of all teenagers employed full time in this country are currently in apprenticeships and traineeships. For those, at least on this side, who are interested in traditional trades, traditional skills and apprenticeships, 128,000 of them are in traditional trades. That represents 38 per cent of all the new apprentices in Australia, while those trades represent about 13 per cent of employment in the labour market.I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Lake Hume Resort in Albury with the member for Farrer to present the minister's awards for excellence for employers in regional and rural Australia. We had 16 outstanding employers. Glenys Petherick from the Rose-a-Vern Hair Salon in Tumby Bay is waiting for the member for Grey to come in and get a haircut—she told me to tell you that. She also said to me, `We take on apprentices because we believe it changes the lives of young Australians.' The member for Page would know John Lynch Engineering in Coraki. He and his wife are benefiting from the way the Australian economy is going and they are able to take on even more apprentices and trainees.I am asked about other policies or statements, and in that regard I welcome to the training and apprenticeship portfolio the member for Grayndler. This means that the member for Grayndler is now apprenticed to the former Labor spokesperson on apprentices and training, the member for Kingston, who is missing in action at the moment. Opposition members—He is right here!RW5Dr NELSON—There he is, Mr Speaker; there's the member for Kingston! So the key to success for Labor Party spokespersons on apprentices and training is to say absolutely nothing. In eight months, the member for Kingston did not ask me a single question about apprentices or about training. In fact I suspect the member for Reid said to him, `Mate, the key to success on the Labor side with apprentices is: bring in a book, just sit back and don't ask any questions.' The question is, in terms of training and apprentices, what do we know about the member for Grayndler as the Labor spokesperson for training and apprentices? I went to the Australian Political Almanac and for the member for Grayndler it says:Some of the most celebrated Labor factional battles of recent history have been won and lost by one man: Anthony Albanese.The member for Werriwa comes into this, Mr Speaker.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—You could have been a Labor spokesperson, you rat!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat! The minister will come back to the question.RW5Dr NELSON—Thank you, Mr Speaker, I will with great pleasure. The almanac went on further to say:... Albanese likes to stress that he is also a policy enthusiast.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: even under the most generous application of alternative policies, detailed recitation to the House of personal details of members is clearly out of order.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question.RW5Dr NELSON—Thank you, Mr Speaker: in relation to apprentices and training, the member for Grayndler will no doubt be celebrating the fact that this government this year announced another 30,000 places for apprentices in schools at $31.7 million. It also announced another 25,000 places for innovation apprentices in microtechnologies, robotics, photonics and information communication technology. But I suspect the member for Werriwa does not share my enthusiasm or my optimism for the member for Grayndler. In fact, in relation to training and apprentice issues, he told 2GB on 14 December 1998:Anthony Albanese and that narrow faction of politics is more the problem than the solution for the Labor Party, and when it comes to policy he shows his form by just mouthing the tired old slogans you hear around the place.I said to a journalist earlier today, actually Eric, that if anyone—Opposition members interjecting—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—I like what Latham said about you, Nelson: it was factual!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman, the minister and the member for Sturt!R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: as pleased as I am to have caused such concern to the minister after just two days in this job—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will come to his point of order.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—I think he should come to the question. He is quite clearly not being relevant.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will conclude his answer.RW5Dr NELSON—In conclusion, the assessment given by the member for Werriwa of the Labor spokesman for apprentices and training—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—You're a filthy sewer rat.Honourable members interjecting—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—It takes a rat to know a rat!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Werriwa! The Treasurer now has the call.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Mr Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention an offensive remark that was made by the member for Werriwa about the minister, and I invite you to ask him to withdraw it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will withdraw the remark he made about the minister.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: earlier, when the member for Werriwa made a remark, you then ruled that matters had moved on. I think they have moved on.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—No. The member for Lilley is unaware of the fact, as I was, that the member for Werriwa had made a subsequent remark. It is that subsequent remark I am dealing with.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—What was it?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I do not need any help from the member for Lingiari. If he wishes to be denied the opportunity to represent his constituents for an hour, he will continue to behave in that way. The member for Werriwa made a remark that was unparliamentary; it is not a remark that I heard, it is a remark that has been brought to my attention by the Clerk. I ask him to withdraw it.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, it is a ruling that would please Billy Hughes, but I am pleased to withdraw.575515:07:005755Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer you to a report that was released today called A time to invest from the Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia which calls for more support to prevent repeat cases of child abuse and looks at ways to establish opportunities to empower and enrich Australia's families and children. Prime Minister, are you aware that the report calls for national minimum standards to record and report child protection notifications, investigation and substantiation rates? Prime Minister, on this important issue, will you now consider joining with Labor and establishing a national working with children check to start bringing some consistency to the protection of children in this country? 5755Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of the report to which the honourable member for Gellibrand refers and, like her, I am concerned at the apparent failure in many states for some time of child protection policies. Although it so happens at the moment that all of the states are governed by Labor administrations, this failure stretches back to earlier years. I had experience as a local member of some instances of the failure of the current arrangements which adversely affected some of my constituents. As the honourable member will know, it is something that is the responsibility of the states. I will, however, give some consideration to raising the question of the states lifting their game at the next COAG meeting.We live in a federation—and I am, as my colleagues will know, no fanatical states rightist—and we have under this administration, in the teeth of fierce opposition from the Labor Party, put in place a taxation system which will give to the states of Australia growing amounts of revenue. I want to make it very clear that, if there is an inadequacy of money for child abuse policy in this country, that is 100 per cent the responsibility and the failure of successive state governments, whether they be Labor or Liberal. The idea of having some kind of—83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to raise this point of order, but the question was specific on the recommendations asking for national involvement—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Gellibrand will resume her seat. I cannot find any reason to entertain any such point of order and, if she continues to raise them, I will deal with her. 83REdwards, Graham, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Cowan!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The member asked me a question. I gave it a very direct, explicit and constructive answer. Her interjection merely indicates that she is not really interested in the issue, that she is just trying to score a cheap political point.575615:11:005756Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Would the minister advise the House of any recent figures that demonstrate how Australia's small business sector has benefited under the economic management of the coalition government? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches, and what would be the impact if these were implemented?5756Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I thank the member for Canning for another question on small business. This government recognise the importance of small business to the Australian economy, to our economic future and to our prosperity. That is why we introduced a tax reform package some years ago that delivered lower company tax, reduced excises and reduced income tax. It also halved capital gains tax, abolished provisional tax, abolished financial institutions duty and a range of other measures. The package was opposed by the Labor Party, which comes as no surprise, because we, on this side of the House, believe that small business creates jobs; on that side of the House, the Labor Party believe in political opportunism.The Yellow Pages survey released today is sobering news. It found that small businesses are experiencing positive growth in most areas, particularly in employment and capital expenditure. That is great news, but more needs to be done, particularly in relation to workplace relations changes which were touched on by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations a little earlier. The survey found that, when it comes to attitudes to federal government policies, our current level of support from small business is four times better than Labor's best ever result in February 1994. In August 1995, when Labor was still in office, its approval rating with small business was minus 60 per cent. Disturbingly, the Yellow Pages survey found:... the Western Australian Labor government continued to be the least supported government with an approval rating of minus 31 per cent.The most significant concern identified by small and medium-sized enterprises about the Western Australian government was that it took too much notice of the unions. This is a warning for the member for Hotham. The Western Australian government wound back the workplace relations reforms and has always focused on the interests of the unions ahead of those of small business.Obviously, as part of the survey, there were questions for small business, and I found this quote from the Executive Director of the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association of Western Australia, Mr Terry Bright. His members were concerned that an outfit such as the Coffin Cheaters bikie gang could be authorised as a representative to access the workplace and see financial records of businesses even if no complaint was registered and there were no union members there. He said:There is no level of competency that these people need to be called union representatives.If it gives Mr Bright any comfort, there is no competency test to become a member of the parliamentary Labor Party either. Of course, Labor Senator Gavin Marshall said, `Unionists are part of the moral bedrock of this country.' In Western Australia, the Coffin Cheaters bikie gang fits within the definition of unionists under Western Australian Labor Party legislation. This Yellow Pages survey is a warning to the member for Hotham that, if he keeps giving the unions more power, he will not be able to cheat the political coffin.575715:16:005757Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, with his responsibilities for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Office of the Status of Women and domestic violence programs therein. Is the Prime Minister aware of the recent Gordon inquiry into the response by government agencies to complaints of family violence and child abuse in Aboriginal communities that found that Aboriginal women in WA, who make up only three per cent of the female population, account for 50 per cent of all domestic violence incidents reported to police and that Aboriginal communities were the subject of substantiated child abuse at more than seven times the rate of non-Aboriginal communities? Prime Minister, can you specifically outline your government's response to this report? Would you also outline the programs your government has designed to address these problems Australia-wide, how much you are spending on them, and what your future plans are to reduce such violence? 5757Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will respond to the member for Fremantle in two ways. I will give a general response now, which is positive to the point that she made, and for her benefit and for the benefit of other members I will give a more detailed response when I have had the opportunity to get further advice about what the government has done. I do not pretend to carry in my head the full details of everything the government has done.The member for Fremantle has referred to a problem that has been ignored for too long. It has been ignored by governments and oppositions for too long through fear of seeming to give offence to Aboriginal communities and through fear of being accused of singling out Aboriginal people in relation to domestic violence. I think there was a real breakthrough on this issue when Evelyn Scott, who was the Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, in the wake of some of the statements that were made in 2000 by other Aboriginal leaders, raised—the first time it was raised by an Aboriginal leader in a serious way—the concern that she felt about the level of domestic violence in Aboriginal communities. I think it is far too high and, if the question asked by the member for Fremantle suggests that there will be a degree of bipartisan intent to deal with this problem, I welcome it. I know her interest in it and I accept that she is interested in it. I ask her to accept that I am. I ask her to accept that, as I hope to outline when I give her more details, there has been already some focus on this issue within the government's domestic violence programs.I think there are chronic levels of alcoholism in Aboriginal communities. I think there are chronic levels of substance abuse. That is not to say there is not domestic violence, substance abuse and alcoholism in other communities—I hasten to say that; of course there is—but the incidence and the level appear higher in Aboriginal communities, and that has to be said. It has to be said very directly and very firmly. As far as I am concerned, there should be a far greater emphasis, in the money that is already made available to ATSIC, on programs for combatting domestic violence. As you invite me to say something, I would say to ATSIC, `It is in your gift and your power to give more money to domestic violence and less money to other things, and I ask that you do it.' I hope that I might have the support of the opposition in doing that. I hope that the opposition would support it.Domestic violence is a huge problem in Aboriginal communities. It is a problem in the community. I do not for a moment suggest that it is restricted to the Aboriginal community and I do not suggest for a moment that it is restricted to any particular socioeconomic group in the general community—so let us get that right out of the way right at the very beginning. It is a sickening area of human behaviour and something that has always revolted me. I think it would revolt men and women on both sides of this parliament. So, if the member for Fremantle is seeking a response in principle to the issue, I have given it. As to more details, I will obtain them. I will write her a letter and I will make the letter available to all honourable members.575815:21:005758Ley, Sussan, MPMs LEY00AMNFarrerLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister inform the House of progress in the Howard government's highly successful Work for the Dole scheme, and is the minister aware of any other mutual obligation schemes operating currently?5758Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I am pleased to be able to inform the House that, since the introduction of Work for the Dole in 1997, this month we have racked up 10,433 different projects right around Australia, assisting Australian communities and assisting individuals to better themselves, to help themselves and to improve the communities of which they are part. There is not one member on this side of the House who has not seen with their own eyes the benefit that this can make to individuals in their own electorates.84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Swan, for the third time!2K6Mr BROUGH—We hear comments such as this by a Western Australian participant:I met some really interesting people, we did work we never thought we would be doing. It was a big boost to my self-esteem. Now I have a job and I am back to my confident self.These are the sorts of comments that lift people on this side, and all we get are disparaging comments from those opposite. Here is another comment from a Work for the Dole participant:I enjoyed Work for the Dole. It is horrible being unemployed because you get tired of looking for work and start to fall into a slump. At least I now have a reason for getting out of bed in the morning.This comment is from the community of Dudley in New South Wales:The restoration of our hall was made possible through Work for the Dole. All work was completed admirably by the Work for the Dole participants. They were committed to the activity and made a wonderful contribution.Doesn't that say it all about the things they are doing in their communities?The question from the member for Farrer also asks whether I am aware not of other policies but of other examples of mutual obligation under way. As I was leaving the dispatch box last week, having brought the House's attention to the fact that New Labour in Great Britain actually supports mutual obligation, I heard this weird comment from the opposition leader. He said, `I'm all for mutual obligation.' The member for Werriwa over there said, `That's my idea.' That got me to thinking. I went back and checked the web site, and there is no indication of the Australian Labor Party supporting Work for the Dole or mutual obligation. I have to inform the House that I have undersold the Leader of the Opposition. Not only is he a supporter of mutual obligation; it turns out that he is an active participant in mutual obligation. The Leader of the Opposition is actively participating in mutual obligation right now, as we speak. I see the Prime Minister is somewhat bemused by this too. As mutual obligation goes, we pay the unemployed income support and in return they pay back to the community by working two days a week. This is a great mutual obligation that we have built on over the years. But the mutual obligation that we are seeing from the Leader of the Opposition is where we see the trade unions paying millions of dollars into the coffers of the Labor Party and in return the Labor Party—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The chair is having a great deal of difficulty finding any relevance between the mutual obligation illustration currently being used by the minister and the question. The minister will return to the question.2K6Mr BROUGH—What I would like to bring to the House's attention is that, whilst not supporting the government's mutual obligation, the fact is that the Leader of the Opposition each and every day sits in this place, receives a financial payment from the unions to the party—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.575915:25:005759Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister, and I thank the Prime Minister for his previous answer. This does require bipartisan support. I want you, in replying to us, to answer the following question: are you aware that in responding to the report that I mentioned in my previous question, the Gordon report, ATSIC stated that only $1.3 million—that is, less than half a per cent of the $306.5 million allocated by the Office of the Status of Women in your Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet—actually went to Indigenous family violence and sexual assault initiatives? I think it is important that we get an answer to that question as well. I would also like the Prime Minister to confirm in his statement that there was significant underspending of these moneys in the last financial year, of $4.3 million. I also understand that one of the reasons for ATSIC cutting its funding back in 1996 was that it lost some $400 million from its budget.5759Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In relation to those figures, I will not try and answer them on the run because I do not, frankly, know the answer without getting advice. It is my broad understanding that a percentage of the domestic violence program—I think about 10 per cent of the domestic violence program, which the honourable member will understand is a greater proportion than the proportion of the Indigenous community in the total population—was allocated to Indigenous programs. That is the domestic violence program separately and apart from anything ATSIC might have provided. I hope that she would accept that that is in earnest of us giving more than just a proportionate recognition of the problem. I will get some more details of the figures; I just do not have them with me.575915:27:005759Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister inform the House on recent initiatives to assist young people, like Ellen Downes of my electorate of Gilmore, working in agriculture, fisheries, forestry and natural resource management—Opposition members—No names!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Gilmore will restate her question.AK6Mrs GASH—Sorry, Mr Speaker. Would the minister inform the House on recent initiatives to assist young people working in agriculture, fisheries, forestry and natural resource management to further develop their leadership, management and business skills?5759Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—My thanks to the member for Gilmore for asking this very important question about what this government has been able to do to assist young people, particularly in rural areas, to develop their skills. The government has launched a range of major new initiatives to help young people who want to make a career of agriculture, particularly those between the ages of 18 and 35 years. Amongst those initiatives has been a series of rural leadership training courses that have been held in Canberra over the last couple of years. I am pleased to welcome to the gallery today the participants in the latest of those leadership courses, 40 young people who have come from every state of Australia to participate in a program to help develop their skills and to ensure that Australian rural communities have the quality of leaders that will be necessary to help drive them forward in the years ahead. The other initiatives that have been launched include director training programs, awards for projects in science and study programs for young people and a series of other networks to support them in achieving their potential.Later this afternoon we will be launching the Young Australian Rural Network, a web site for young people who are participating in rural industry. It is www.yarn.gov.au, for anyone who is interested and who would like to participate. It will give young people, the rural leaders of the community, an opportunity to have a say in the development of government policy and the issues of the day as well as to network and to learn from one another about the sorts of things that are happening in agricultural life. They have been involved in developing this site and putting together the mechanisms to make it work. I encourage members of the House who are interested in young people in rural areas and would like to give them some support to check the site and examine its capabilities to support the leadership potential of those people in their communities who will go on to be major leaders of agriculture in the years ahead. I welcome the participants in the leadership course to Canberra and I thank them for their role in developing this important new initiative for rural Australians. ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice5760576015:29:005760Mr HOWARD,MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer I gave during question time.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister may proceed.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I will still have to come back to the member for Fremantle with some more detail on the figures, but I have been told that the underspend to which she referred does not relate to the Indigenous specific component of the program, which is on track.Miscellaneous576015:30:005760SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House that it is my intention to issue a writ on Monday, 16 September 2002 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Cunningham in the state of New South Wales to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Hon. Dr Stephen Paul Martin. The dates in connection with the by-election will be fixed as follows: close of rolls—Monday, 23 September 2002; nomination—Thursday, 26 September 2002; polling day—Saturday, 19 October 2002; return of writ—on or before Wednesday, 25 December 2002.Questions to the Speaker5760576015:32:005760Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question relates to standing order 91 and the maximum period of 20 minutes for which a member may speak during the second reading debate of a bill. As you know, yesterday the House confirmed that maximum period for members speaking in the Main Committee on the second reading of the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Are you aware that last night in the Main Committee the member for Wentworth commenced speaking on the second reading of the bill at 8.08 p.m., and that is recorded at page 5444 of Hansard today, and that his speech concluded 40 minutes later at 8.48 p.m., and that is recorded at page 5452 of Hansard—a 40 minute speech? Mr Speaker, could you outline to the House the basis for a 40-minute speech, or is it the case that when speaking in the Main Committee on this bill members have half the conscience but double the time?5760SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I would be much more inclined to respond to the member for Perth if he had not made the flippant remark on the end. I indicate to him that what I saw of the Main Committee last night would suggest to me that it was hardly—mercifully—typical of the normal procedures in the Main Committee. I understood there was some confusion over the clock and some timing and there was confusion over the time appropriately taken out of members' speeches for points of order. There was some confusion over that. The standing orders stand. Last night's exhibition in the Main Committee would hardly become a benchmark for any change to the standing orders, nor is it a benchmark for any future debates.576015:34:005760Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I have a second question for you, Mr Speaker. Are you aware that last night in the Main Committee there was an unresolved motion expressing a lack of confidence in the chair of the Main Committee? Mr Speaker, are you concerned that a member of your Speaker's panel has an unresolved issue relating to the confidence that the Main Committee has in him? Can you confirm that this is the first time there has been an unresolved issue relating to confidence in a Deputy Speaker in the Main Committee? As a consequence, do you have any advice for members of your panel for dealing with such an issue? Is it not preferable that such an issue of confidence be resolved immediately by the House and not left for a later day?5761SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—First I would say that it would be quite inappropriate for me to deal with any unresolved issues in the Main Committee until they have been formally reported to the House. That would be consistent with what previous Speakers have done. I have no intention of taking any action on any matters in the Main Committee until there is a formal report in this chamber. The second part of your question referred to members of the Speaker's panel. Without exception—and there were some difficult exercises in the Main Committee last night and there were some difficult exercises in the chamber last night—everyone on the Speaker's panel dealt with the matters, I thought, entirely appropriately and in most instances commendably.576115:35:005761Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Speaker, I too have a question for you. In today's question time the honourable member for Lilley in question one and question two made references to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and said in part of his question `Minister, are you aware that' and `Minister, why won't you change' and in question two `Minister, why won't you allow'. Mr Speaker, you did say after that that you will not allow `you' to be used in a question and that it was inappropriate. I would like to have you qualify how you put a question together when you have said `Minister, why won't you allow'. How can you remove the `you' and make sense of the question?5761SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Prospect for that matter because it allows me to elaborate on a point that I made appropriately but not in detail earlier in question time. I prefaced my remarks to the member for Lilley and I think to a member of the government as well—it was a minister, in fact, as I reflect on it—by saying that people should always address their remarks through the chair. In that context—and I will check the Hansard—the use of the word `you' is not always appropriate. There are instances, clearly, when a comment made through the chair can still have the word `you' in it—as you, the member for Prospect, have just clearly illustrated. But if you check Hansard, you will find instances in which the question was asked in a way that involved the chair—unintentionally—and an answer was given that similarly said `you' and would have involved the chair. Re-read the Hansard and you will find that I prefaced my remarks about `you' by saying that people should consider first that they are addressing the chamber through the chair. The word `you' is not, to use a colloquialism, a four-letter word in the parliamentary context. The word `you' is, however, not appropriate if it involves the chair in the question. 576115:37:005761Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. My question arises from your decision last night to call for the ringing of the division bells for one minute only. I note that standing order 203A states:When successive divisions are taken, and there is no intervening debate after the first division, the bells for the ensuing division shall be rung for one minute only.At page 5430, the ProofHansard shows that, after the first division, the member for Ryan began to debate the bill before the House at 9.35 p.m. and that, following the intervention of the member for Perth, a division on the question that the member for Perth be not further heard was called at 9.37 p.m. I note that the two members missed the second division. I also point out that members are not aware, from the sound of the bells, whether they have one minute or four minutes to get to the chamber. My question to you, Mr Speaker, is: will you in future apply the one-minute bell only where there is no intervening debate whatsoever?5761SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Fowler makes a valid point. Last night, while the remarks made by the member for Ryan were by any standards brief—less than a minute, I believe—nonetheless there was intervening debate and the member for Fowler's point is accepted by the chair. It was a case of me feeling that there had not been much intervening debate. Nonetheless, there was some intervening debate and I accept that comment.Documents5762576210000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 5 of 2002-03 entitled Performance Audit: the strategic partnership agreement between the Department of Health and Ageing and the Health Insurance Commission.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents5762Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.39 p.m.)—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:That the House take note of the following papers:National Health and Medical Research Council—2001 Annual Report of the National Health and Medical Research Council—Section 83(3) of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992. (8 August 2001 / 8 August 2001)Treaties—Proposed treaty action with National Interest Analysis and Regulation Impact StatementBilateral· Protocol, done at Canberra on 23 January 2002, amending the Convention between Australia and Canada for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, done at Canberra on 21 May 1980Proposed treaty actions with National Interest AnalysesBilateral· Second Protocol and Exchange of Letters, done at Genting Highlands, Malaysia on 28 July 2002, amending the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income of 20 August 1980, as amended by the First Protocol of 2 August 1999 · Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Security Measures for the Reciprocal Protection of Classified Information, done at Canberra on 25 June 2002 Multilateral· Amendments, done at Shimonoseki, Japan on 24 May 2002, to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, done at Washington on 2 December 1946.· Amendment, adopted on 18 October 2000, to the Limitation Amounts in the Protocol of 1992 to amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969.· Amendment, adopted on 18 October 2000, to the Limits of Compensation in the Protocol of 1992 to amend the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971.Proposed treaty actions with replacement National Interest AnalysesBilateral· Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Democratic Republic of East Timor concerning Arrangements for Exploration and Exploitation of Petroleum in an Area of the Timor Sea between Australia and East Timor, done at Dili on 20 May 2002.· Timor Sea Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of East Timor, done at Dili on 20 May 2002.Debate (on motion by Mr Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance5762576210000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gellibrand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The Government's failure to address the growing crisis in child care, and the resulting pressures on families balancing work and family life.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:40:005762Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—Child care is a really important issue. After the answers given by the Minister forChildren and Youth Affairs in question time yesterday and today, the debate is even more important than it has been until now. Basically, this government has been getting away with providing child care on the cheap. It is a system that is growing; we do not deny that. Labor built up child care to start with, and it has progressed. There are more children in child care, and there has to be some increased expenditure along with that. But we are finding that the government is spending less money per place, which means that the money that has gone missing—$800 per child-care place—has to affect something. It has to affect the wages of the staff. We have a crisis in the industry at the moment, with all of the qualified staff thinking seriously about whether they can stay in child care. As many members on this side of the House would know, we have child-care workers who cannot afford child care themselves. They do not get paid enough to be able to take advantage of a child-care system set up for working people. They are paid less than almost every other profession in this country.If the government is going to provide child care on the cheap, we are going to see problems somewhere. Quality might be at risk. We all know that one of the things you cannot afford to sacrifice in child care is quality. I think this is something that the minister is aware of. He knows that we cannot afford to have anything but the best standards in child-care services. We need well-trained staff and we need excellent quality control systems. At the moment, we are putting the centres under so much pressure that we are not sure how they are going to be able to deliver.In my electorate of Gellibrand we have huge waiting lists in the growing suburbs of Yarraville and Footscray. I know the members for Lilley, Hunter, Greenway, Prospect, Ballarat, McMillan, Chisholm and Kingston—and I could probably name almost everybody sitting on this side of the House—all have examples of the same problem, and I know there are many on the other side of the House who do too. One of the members opposite, who looks like she might be the second speaker in this debate, has been lobbying the minister for some time about shortages in family day care in her electorate. The government controls the number of places that can be provided for family day care and outside school hours care. The government puts a cap on the numbers, and you are not allowed to open up a child-care service unless the government increases those numbers. We could talk all we like about the fact that 32,000 places are needed for outside school hours care, but that means thousands of parents who have no options for their children after school if they cannot get them into care. There are examples—and I have visited many of these services—where parents want the care for only one or two days a week as they work part time. They cannot get into a program. A program that might have 40 places might service 100 children, and they still cannot get into the program. You acknowledged yesterday that there are some difficulties in this system, but, Minister, that is not really enough for us. I know that the Deputy Speaker would agree that the importance of getting children with disabilities into some type of child care and the importance for their parents to have some respite is enormous. Having this mean-spirited cut, which was advised before the budget—the government did not even have the guts to put it in the budget papers—means that we have hundreds of children who cannot get into these services. I think that is an outrage and is an example of this government being prepared to start with those who are most vulnerable. That is where they are going to save their money: with the most vulnerable first. That is what we have seen this week. We have had the minister on the front page of the paper on Monday saying that he was going to take away payments from parents who did not perform to some parenting standard that he thought was adequate. He was going to start with the welfare recipients and he was going to punish those families that are already in the most stretched circumstances. Well, Minister, there are a lot of families that earn a lot more money than those welfare recipients that also need help. As you know, parenting is not an easy job, and I think that it is outrageous to suggest that you should look first at penalties rather than looking at what services and system should apply. This minister has not just missed the bus on child care; he does not even know where to find the schedule for the buses. He would not know. He has no plan. He is just going to deal with one thing at a time. XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—My children catch the bus.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON—Do not talk to me about your children or we will have to tell them about you leaving them in the car. I think that we should look at how the government can provide children with the proper conditions that they need.Honourable members interjecting—83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON—If you want to start a fight, bring it on, but there are risks for you if you do that. The bottom line is that this minister has not got a clue. He thinks he can float an idea on Sunday and get some good media coverage on Monday, then he realises what the problems are and says, `Oops, no, I never meant that.' I think children in this country deserve a plan. They deserve not just a minister who is going to be nice to them; they deserve a minister who has a plan for their future.Working families need a minister that is going to take it up to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and say, `We need more money in this area. We actually need to spend more because we can't deliver the services that we have to deliver.' I think that clearly didn't happen in this year's budget: not a single extra place in outside school hours care and not a single extra place in family day care. It is a system that is in crisis and the government refuses to admit it. It cannot continue to get away with this, and we will be promoting and pushing this because families are relying on us to get the government to meet their needs. Those working families are absolutely at their wits' end. We bandy the shortages about, but for every single place that is not available there is a parent who cannot get their child into care. That is a parent who relies on family and friends—if they are lucky. It is a parent who makes a difficult decision about whether or not they will return to work if they cannot get care, and that puts more economic pressure on the family. It is not something that we want for Australian families. I think that this government needs to take heed of that and the minister needs to get in and lobby for more places, the same way the backbench has been lobbying him for places in their areas. We will be making sure that they do not only go to your areas, Minister, when you allocate new ones, because there are plenty of examples where more are needed.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—We went to the member for Lilley's area.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON—We know what has been happening up there, Minister, but it does not resolve the problem of the thousands of other families—including the services that are in your electorate and lobby you for extra places for outside school hours care too. I have no doubt that you are aware of the problem, but we want an answer. In the last school holidays, Labor called for the government to increase the numbers. So far we have heard nothing. We have heard Minister Vanstone say that there will not be any new places. We have school holidays coming up again in the next month and we have families and children with nowhere to go. We do not want to leave that situation the way it is.I also said that these problems are not something new and the minister knows—I am not sure that the Prime Minister does, but it is something that needs to be brought to his attention—that it is not just us talking about these problems. Your own Commonwealth Childcare Advisory Council have identified the crisis that we are in. In September last year they released a comprehensive report of a plan that was required for child care. Do you think we have heard an answer on that report? Do you think we have heard a single thing? We have not heard a word during the election. We have not heard a word from the minister since, and these problems are still there. Your own advisory council are being ignored by you, Minister, and they are sick of it. There is going to be a lot more action in this area if they do not see more places being allocated and some quality put into the system. Even worse than that, the families that have difficulty getting places in child care are the same families that you are slugging at the moment by taking payments back from them without telling them—hundreds of dollars at a time, and thousands in some cases. These families struggle; they cannot get into the care they want or they get one day instead of three; then you slug them and take money back without even telling them that you are going to do it. So it is the lowest act that you can imagine for the very families that are under pressure.Interestingly enough, I know many of the local media have been covering this. It seems that the Illawarra Mercury took a great deal of interest in this issue only several weeks ago because they knew that there were thousands of families in their area that were being slugged by your government—and that was even before this round. There were thousands of families in Cunningham—an estimated 3,497 families—that owed nearly $3 million. That was before you started actually claiming all of the money back. We want to know how many of them you are going to be grabbing money from. At the end of the day these families are just trying to do the right thing. They advise the Family Assistance Office when their income changes, and your system does not give them any protection. Even when they do have to pay money back, you do not give them the decency of letting them do it over a period of time that they can manage based on their budget. We know that family budgets are not easy things to juggle.What this industry needs, Minister, is a long-term plan. We need a government that is prepared to say, `This is what children in Australia are entitled to. These are the child-care services they are entitled to. These are the support programs parents should have. These are the other services that we are prepared to provide.' But, as I said, Minister, it is not just missing the bus, you have got no bus schedule. You have no idea where we should go. You have no plan for the future and it is not good enough.We have also asked you, Minister, to support a proposal of ours that is aimed at protecting some of the most vulnerable children in the community. That is a proposal to establish a commissioner for children and young people and to set up a national working-with-children check. The Prime Minister said that he is interested in child protection and will tell the states that they should do more. That is not enough, Prime Minister, and it is not enough from a national government. We have a serious national problem, and the national government has a role to play in it.The report that has been released today from the Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia does call on the states to take action, but it also calls on the Commonwealth—and the Commonwealth cannot wash its hands of this issue. You, Minister, know enough about the area and the needs of children in those vulnerable positions to not let your Prime Minister wash his hands of the problem. It is something that you need to take action on sooner rather than later.In addressing this matter, I have a final question I would like to ask you, Minister, given that you are the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Labor has been campaigning for a long time on getting children out of detention. This is something that we feel very strongly about. I have a detention centre in my electorate which also has children in it. We are moving an amendment in this House which would allow children to be taken out of high-security detention. I must say that we will expect you, as the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, to be voting with us—we will expect you to be voting with us to make sure that those children can have a decent future and a decent life, just as we expect for children who are born and bred in Australia.Minister, we also want you to call on the Prime Minister and your government to ensure that everyone of your side of the House gets a free vote on this issue. It is an issue of conscience; what happens to children is an issue of conscience. I do not think that you, Minister, want on your conscience a vote to keep these children in detention. Your government has established a Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and it is time that you stand up and make sure you are counted on this. We will be watching to see what happens, and we will be looking forward to many other people in this debate voting with us on this issue.We have a government that is in denial. We have a government that thinks it is doing all it can for families. You like to present that image, but you cannot fool us any longer: you cannot snatch back money from family tax benefit and think that no-one is going to notice; you cannot leave hundreds of children on waiting lists with parents that cannot get their children into care and think that nobody is going to notice. We have noticed, we are watching and we are counting. There are plenty of families out there who want a decent go for their children, and they want just a little more help from the government than they are getting at the moment.15:55:005766Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I must admit that the member for Gellibrand covered a wide range of subjects, which I am very happy to address in a systematic manner. It is unfortunate, though, that she made some personal references to me. I think that is beneath her—and she does not need to do that. I would like to address some of the central points. The key argument that the Australian Labor Party has here is that somehow we have been negligent and underfunded child care. The inference is that the child-care sector was in a much better state when the Australian Labor Party was last in government—God forbid—prior to 1996.Before I get into the substantive issues raised by the member for Gellibrand, let me say that there are more children today using Commonwealth funded child care than ever before in Australia's history. Over 700,000 children now are using some type of Commonwealth funded child care. This is significantly more than back in the halcyon days when Paul Keating was Prime Minister! At that time around 450,000 to 460,000 children were using child care. With the reforms that we have made in collapsing child-care assistance and child-care rebate into child-care benefit, child care is now far more affordable. That is why there are 2,000 additional child care centres today. That is why there are now more children using a whole range of areas of child care, as I articulated in question time today, whether it is outside school hours care—which is up 221 per cent—whether it is long day care or whether it is family day care, and on the list goes. Part of the reason for demand increasing dramatically is the extra assistance and money that we are putting through CCB. To reiterate, the cost of child care has come down in the last 24 months—as the ABS says—by about nine per cent. Why is that? It is because this family friendly government is putting more money into child care, making it more affordable and, therefore, increasing demand. NV5Forrest, John, MPMr Forrest—Hear, hear!XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Every member, I know, whether the member for Mallee or the member for Cowper, recognises that child care has now become far more affordable—and, in particular, we have increased benefits for families on low incomes, who need it the most. Again I want to reiterate: the coalition is spending $8 billion for the next four years compared with around $3.6 billion spent in the last four years of Labor. Maybe my coalition partners can help me: am I missing something here?Government members—No.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Eight billion dollars seems to be more than $3.6 billion. We have done that. What we have also done—and I take check at what the shadow spokesperson said—is improve quality. We were the ones who introduced quality assurance to make sure that, with increased demand, quality met the levels expected by families when putting their most precious possession—as would be acknowledged by those with children—into a child-care centre. We put in place the new accreditation system for long day care and we have put in place a system for family day care and it is what we want to do with outside school hours care in due course. But it would be irresponsible for me to demand that accreditation goes in now when they are not prepared. I recognise that there is enormous demand for outside school hours care. Why? Because we have made it a lot more affordable. The member for Gellibrand says, `Why aren't you putting more money into it?' We are already putting in $8 billion; how much did you put in? You put in significantly less. The member for Gellibrand says, `Why don't you provide more places?' I tell you what, we have a system now where, if private operators want to go into an area, they can—we will support them through child-care benefit—and it is more affordable for families.If you had supported this government on some of its budget measures, whether in trying to reform the disability support sector—which you do not support—or in trying to make savings with pharmaceutical benefits, maybe this government might have had some more money to be able to place in other social welfare programs. The bottom line is: all the questioning that the Australian Labor Party have done over the last two days has been because they realise they are losing the battle when it comes to them being meant to represent families. It is the coalition that is representing and leading the debate on work and families—and certainly not the Australian Labor Party.I agree that, as a community and as a nation, we have got to value child-care workers more—and I have said that on the public record—because some people might think they are just babysitters. They are not. I have tried to articulate in the last few days that I have no qualms at all about trying to put the early years, particularly early intervention and prevention, on the agenda. Of course some of those workers need to be paid more. 83KRoxon, Nicola, MPXJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Would you be quiet, please. Listen to me. There are issues, particularly when it comes to quality, and I think that at some point in time parents are going to have to place more value on the work done by people who work in and are professionals within the child-care sector. I do not have any dispute with that. I think it is unreasonable—aided and abetted, perhaps, by the member for Gellibrand—to look at 100 per cent wage increases. That will send child-care centres into enormous financial difficulty; and, at the end of the day, what are we trying to do? We are trying to look after the children by having a formal accreditation process for most of the sectors, and, of course, we are trying to balance work and family.The member for Gellibrand talks about some of my comments about parenting payments. I think the member for Gellibrand and the member for Lilley are getting together a new leadership team, trying to outmanoeuvre the member for Hotham, and we have seen that now. The member for Lilley was out there—and so was the member for Gellibrand—saying how outrageous it is that I should suggest that we should be putting more emphasis on better parenting skills. I am a parent, and I can always do with more assistance, but I am lucky because at least I have the educational ability to try to seek it, and I have a very good partner. But the fact is that we do need to put more emphasis on those early years and we do need to give assistance to parents—and it does not matter what income level they are.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—What about the penalties?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Okay. It is interesting, because they say, `You are stealing our policies.' Let me quote the member for Lilley. He went on radio 2UE yesterday and said, `I do not think what Larry Anthony said will work. I think it would be completely self-defeating.' Let us just wind the clock back. I know the member for Deakin is listening very keenly. The member for Lilley, addressing the Evatt Foundation in May 1999, said: ... what if first time parents applying for parenting payment were required to participate in programs like Families First to be eligible for their first payment?Whacko! There you go. He has actually advocated something like that. It is not government policy, but certainly we are going to start this debate, because it is an important debate to have, and you were the ones who were advocating putting those penalties on. Talk about the hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party! I noticed a comment in the Australian today, which said, `We need a national debate on how to improve parenting in the vital years of childhood.' I say good on them—and good on the other members who are having a sensible debate here, as opposed to the glimmer twins who are sitting opposite me now. The member for Gellibrand goes on to say that we are allocating only some places here and there. We are allocating places back to the child-care sector. We have been in close liaison with the outside school hours care and family day care sectors in particular to see where there are unused places, and we will reallocate them to other areas. It is interesting, because in some of those areas recently in Queensland a number were reallocated—9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MP2V5Swan, Wayne, MPXJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Indeed to the member for Petrie, and indeed to the member for Lilley.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I will take credit for 10.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—He will take credit for anything. Another interesting thing that was raised by the member for Gellibrand was the notion of a children's commissioner, as they are trying to steal the high ground. You did not listen to what the Prime Minister said, member for Gellibrand, and you should have listened, because he made a very good statement. This is an important issue; you know that and you should not politicise it, because this is one issue where the government, the opposition and the states should be trying to work in the same direction rather than point scoring. The Prime Minister actually stated that he will take it to COAG. That is the best place to start—with the premiers—when it comes to these issues, particularly where there is child abuse and neglect. But you have got to understand, member for Gellibrand, and you know this: constitutionally, the area of child protection does rest with the states. I think the Prime Minister was very understanding. We need to do more work—and why shouldn't we? We still have 20,000 children who have been removed from their parents, because of child abuse or neglect, by relevant state agencies. I think the commitment that the Prime Minister made today to take it to COAG is a good start. But to say that the magic answer is a children's commissioner is, I think, naive; I really do. A children's commissioner would not have any powers, and you know that. The Gordon inquiry was for the state of Western Australia and, whilst we will, in whatever shape or form, cooperate with the states, ultimately this is the states' jurisdiction and they must be able to get their own houses in order. If the Commonwealth government can help, then so be it. But I think it is regrettable that you are trying to make this a political point scoring exercise. I address my comments to the member for Lilley as well. This is unnecessary. They are not even listening now on this very serious issue. It just goes to show the double standards and the hypocrisy that they are talking about, and it is most regrettable. They go on and talk about this report that was released yesterday—and, yes, I will be launching it. They talk about what we need to do, whether it is in the area of child protection or whether it is in the area of foster care. I have been, in a very quiet way—and I give due credit to some of the Labor shadow ministers—going around in a bipartisan way and not seeking the big headlines—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—What did you do yesterday?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Listen, member for Lilley. How can we go about helping foster care parents, who are undervalued, and those who do out-of-home care? I think most of them should get a medal. We have a situation where there are not enough Australian parents who are taking on foster care. It used to be done by the religious organisations, but it is less so now. They are underpaid. This is a state area, and there does need to be a look at uniform guidance or legislation. I am happy to talk with my state colleagues, but I do not want to make this a political issue, even in the area of child protection, because we have nothing to gain—and you should not either. I am quite happy to discuss child care, family tax benefits or whatever; that is fine. You have got this smirk on your face, member for Lilley. Why don't you just, for once, when it comes to child protection—10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member will refer his remarks through the chair.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—I note Labor's hypocrisy and insincerity in this area. I note they are giving it a bit more consideration and are taking down a few notes, which I encourage because we need to see more cooperation in the area of child protection. But, ultimately, it is a state responsibility. Here is an opportunity for the opposition to knock on all the Labor Party doors. You all have your friends there, and you should be able to influence them if you truly believe in it.Labor talk about this policy being family unfriendly. The government are spending 70 per cent more on child-care benefits et cetera than Labor did in its last couple of years. We are spending more; we are giving them more money. The family tax benefit goes to 90 per cent of Australian families, not the few per cent that the opposition talked about. I would have thought that 90 per cent was a pretty good spread.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPXJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—The member for Paterson has reminded me that there has been an unprecedented amount of funding in the areas of family payment, child-care benefit and family tax benefit, which goes to assist families. Yes, we try to encourage families to get their entitlements right. Why should they receive taxpayers' money that they are not entitled to? As the Prime Minister said today, if there are areas within the current legislation where we might be able to make it easier, then so be it. But the bottom line is that they are getting more money and it is more targeted. It is means tested. The opposition talk about a free vote on detention centres, but they do not even get a free vote at preselections in Cunningham. This is outrageous. They suggest, `Oh, no; we're not having a vote,' but they ought to get their own house in order before they start lecturing us about free votes. The greatest free vote, I would have thought, is democracy.The rank and file do not get a free vote in the Labor Party, and that is why the majority of working dads and mums are voting for the Liberal-National Party. It is predominantly because this government and its family and work policies make a difference and are relevant to a contemporary Australia rather than look back on the days of very narrow interest groups—dominated by a union movement power base—which fight amongst themselves. They are not delivering or projecting policy for the majority of Australian people. You have seen that in the House of Representatives. How many questions does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Hardly any. He has left it to the hatchet people behind him. He knows he is impotent in a political sense, and he knows that it is this government that is being progressive when it comes to child care. (Time expired)16:10:005769George, Jennie, MPMs GEORGEJH5ThrosbyALP00—I must say I cannot believe the hypocrisy we have just heard from the minister. The future of the child-care sector and young people is in the hands of a minister who believes in his own spin and his own rhetoric. He is divorced from the realities that are facing struggling Australian families throughout the length and breadth of this country. He said this morning in this House that the government was doing a wonderful job in the child-care sector and, just now, he praised the government for being family friendly. The reality is quite divorced from this sentiment. The reality for the families in my electorate is that this government is adding to the daily struggle of their existence and is not doing anything to alleviate the enormous pressures that they are under.We have seen this most remarkably exposed in the great debacle over the family payment debt trap. Labor was told by this minister that it was running a scare campaign. Finally the truth has come out, with the Prime Minister today in this House having to acknowledge that there were fundamental flaws in the family payment system. Yesterday the minister floated a new inane idea, and it did not take long for it to be scuttled by the media commentators and the member for Lilley. Here was this so-called family friendly minister, who has a mentality of punishment, out there proposing to struggling families—to families on benefits—that, if they did not come into his so-called mutual obligation web, he would punish them by stripping them of family payments. What an absolute disgrace for a minister who professes to be cognisant of the pressures on families to propose such an inane proposition. He is guided by a mentality of punishment—a mentality that does not appreciate what is happening on the ground as far as families are concerned.Yes, the Labor Party does support early intervention to assist struggling families and to assist young parents. The member for Lilley has often spoken about the kinds of positive programs that Labor would introduce. But Labor is not guided by a sentiment of punishment or forced mutual obligation. Labor acknowledges that a lot of families, particularly those in low socioeconomic areas, could do with some kind of meaningful intervention. I ask this minister: how can he talk about punishing families? We had a brilliant program in my electorate that was initiated by Barnardos on the South Coast, which wanted to run an early intervention program for families living on the Bundaleer housing estate. You cannot get families more disadvantaged than those living on the Bundaleer housing estate. What response did they get? The response was, `We're sorry.'Minister, I know you are not listening, because it really gets to the core of what this issue is about. Your stronger families program, which was slashed by $16½ million, could not fund a positive early intervention program, but you can run around floating this inane proposition that struggling families would be stripped of benefits if they did not abide by your fanciful notion of mutual obligation. Minister, you might fool yourself—you might start believing your own spin that you are doing a wonderful job in child care—but you cannot fool the people in my electorate.The bungling of the family payment debt system is being replicated in the debt notices that recently hit a number of child-care services in my electorate and in the Illawarra region. Minister, you can personally tell the Illawarra Children's Service about the wonderful job you are doing. It is a not-for-profit service that was recently hit with debt notices in excess of $50,000, payable in one month. Again, it was a bungled, maladministered program. But, Minister, you tell the Dapto Children's Centre that owes $10,000 what a wonderful job you are doing, or the Kiama Downs Centre that was recently told it owed $9,600, or the Barrack Heights Centre which owes $6,800. The list goes on and on. It is another classic case of the bungling and mismanagement of a very important program and, again, it is the not-for-profit sector—those that are out there trying to assist families to balance work and family life—that is being slugged. At the moment, the minister has refused to give any guarantee either that costs for services will not rise or that services will not close. You do not have any appreciation, Minister, of the balance between work and family life. There is a massive shortage of places in outside school hours care and, Minister, you have responsibility for this. You are doing a pathetic job. Your own child-care planning committees told you that we were 31,984 places short in the out of school hours care program.You can write to a constituent of mine, Mr Minister, and tell her what a wonderful job you are doing. My constituent wrote: I am writing to express my frustration and disappointment with the lack of places available in Vacation Care for my two children aged 11 and 8 years. In our community of Dapto, there are only 50 places available for Vacation Care—this is a ludicrous situation! Where is the Howard Government's commitment to providing appropriate care for our children—are we to leave them at home unsupervised? Should we opt to stay out of the workforce due to lack of child care, thereby remaining dependent on Government support? The present system is wrong and puts our children at risk. On behalf of all working/studying parents, I ask you to rectify this situation and pressure the Howard Government to increase funding for child care.So, Minister, you write back to Michele Gaudry and you tell her what a wonderful job you think you are doing in the area of child care. It is not a free market, as we well knew when we took up her case, because we were told all the local providers had a cap put on the services that they provide. So much for balancing work and family life! A struggling single parent cannot even get her child into reasonable vacation care. And there is not a single extra place in this year's budget—so much for the wonderful job that the minister pretends he is doing.Child care is an essential community service; it should be accessible, it should be affordable and it should be of high quality. It should be a system where the staff are properly rewarded and remunerated. To that end, we all wholeheartedly support the efforts of the unions in that sector to get justice for the predominantly feminised profession that child care is. But this minister was not able to deliver any extra funds or any new places either in family day care or in out of school care; there was no new investment in early childhood development and there were no initiatives to solve the staffing crisis. He says, `We are spending more money, and there are more children in child care,' but he does not tell you the other side of the coin, and that is that $800 less is provided for every child in a Commonwealth funded place under this government that professes to be family friendly and that professes to be doing a wonderful job.The minister can keep on fooling himself but he does not fool anybody on this side of the House and surely he does not fool the people on the backbench in this chamber who have—as I have—received many representations about issues that vit-ally affect the quality of life of struggling families. This is no better expressed than in the area of child care. Minister, you can fool yourself and believe you are doing a wonderful job, but the people I represent know that you personally and this government are doing an absolutely woeful job. It is time you got your act together, stopped playing politics and listened to the good proposals that have come from our side of the House. We support early intervention, we support assistance for families and we believe young children are our nation's greatest resource. They deserve financial commitment and resources. We truly believe that we can make a diffe-rence, but we make a difference by under-standing the realities and not going around believing in our own spin.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Before calling the honourable member for Petrie, could I remind members of the need to address their remarks through the chair—a requirement that is greater in speeches than at question time. Regrettably, in the three contributions to this matter of public importance, there have been lapses in this regard.16:20:005771Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—What an amazing MPI we are debating here today that the shadow minister for children and youth has put up. It is very appropriate that I speak after the member for Throsby, because I do want to remind her of some of the achievements of this government. As the MPI today is about child care and the resulting pressures on families balancing work and family, I want to start on the workplace achievements of this government and particularly the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999, where we heralded more equal opportunities for women by allowing employers to focus on actions and achievements. That act provided equal remuneration for work by men and women, and the economic status of working women improved.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—I don't think so.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—I want to start there because we are talking about balancing work and family—and the shadow minister can interject. One of the advantages of that act was to assist families to balance their family and work responsibilities. Under this act we removed restrictions on part-time employment and we provided award provisions for part-time employment as well. We also introduced a number of family friendly agreements which resulted in 76 per cent of agreements in 1999 containing at least one family friendly measure, including flexible hour provisions. It is quite amazing when the opposition come in here and start talking about the crisis in child care. If there is such a crisis in child care, why is the participation rate of women in the labour market at the moment at one of its highest levels ever at 55 per cent? That balance between work and family is more important now than ever before. That participation rate—I am sure those opposite would agree—is the result of strong economic conditions and the flexibility in the work force and in the child-care sector that enable more women to combine work and family measures. That is what this government is about: it is about family friendly measures in the work force.83KRoxon, Nicola, MP9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—At the moment, there are four million women in the paid work force, and most of those women would have adequate child care. The shadow minister opposite interjects all the time. I have been a single mother. I have an electorate with a large number of families who work part time, who work as owner-operators, and they speak to me about their child-care issues. I want to emphasise that, today, women hold 27 per cent of private sector senior managerial positions, which is an increase of 10 per cent since 1990. There has been a greater involvement of women in the workplace, particularly in small business. Women are going back to the small business sector in increasing numbers because of the policies of this government to ensure that there are family friendly practices out there and that there is a balance between work and family. Australian women have access to record levels of child care, including flexible practices, particularly for families in shiftwork and when children are ill. I agree with one thing the shadow minister for children and youth said: parenting is very important. It is not something that any of us, on this side of the House or opposite, take very lightly. This government have been committed to child care. In fact, we have introduced some incredible measures, particularly for Australian families. We were one of the first to introduce the extension of in-home and sick care and the entry of other operators, including private operators, in family day care and outside school hours care.83KRoxon, Nicola, MP9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—It has only been under a coalition government that families in regional areas have been able to access flexible child-care arrangements. That never happened when you were in government. From July 2001 an additional $7.5 million over four years was made available for private operators to set up child-care services in rural areas with no services. Rural families were also assisted, through the Stronger Families and Community Strategy, by the addition of 7,700 home care places for four years from 1 January 2001. But you do not mention that; you do not mention those positive things that this government has done for child care. In home care flexible child care is provided for children in their own home by an approved child-care provider, and so there is access to benefits. That never happened before. It now benefits families who are not able to access other forms of care, including families in rural and regional areas. It took a coalition government to return the focus of child care to the whole of Australia.The coalition spent $4.7 billion on child care over four years, from 1997 to 2001. That was a 36 per cent increase in real terms on the amount in the last four years of the opposition's term—an amazing 70 per cent more, in real terms, than in the last six years the opposition was in office. Child care under this government is based on the circumstances of the family—let us just concentrate on that, because that is what it is all about—rather than on the centre that they use. That means that low- and middle-income families receive targeted assistance, and the areas of greatest need are promoted. That is what it is all about. Across Australia, some 503,000 families use Commonwealth funded child-care services.I know from my own experience that, in my electorate—the shadow minister speaks about my electorate quite a lot when she interjects—there are different demographics and they impact differently on the demand for child care. In some parts of my electorate there is a greater demand for child care than in other parts. It would be the same across all electorates, whether on this side of the House or the opposition side. There are other factors that come into this, such as the ageing of our population. But what this government has done is ensure there is flexibility in the types of child care available to ensure that families, whatever their work or family commitments, have access to child-care facilities.When the opposition was in power, there was no formal child-care planning and there was an oversupply in some areas. I agree with one thing that the shadow minister has said, which the minister also said: we do need to have more integrated planning. As the shadow minister knows, there are three levels of government involvement in this. I know that at the moment, in the Brisbane city area, the Brisbane City Council will not approve child-care places unless there is a demonstrated need. So, yes, there is more scope to work with the three levels of government. There have been some areas in the past that have had an oversupply, and that clearly occurred more frequently when the opposition was in power. Also, child care was much more expensive when the opposition was in government and child-care fees were increasing at an average of 8.5 per cent per annum. Today, increases in those fees are less than half of that—approximately 3.8 per cent per annum since 1996.Last week I was very proud to announce 20 additional family day care scheme places affecting families in my electorate; they will also affect the electorate of Lilley. The shadow minister was talking about such places being skewed more towards the government side, and I just want to correct her on that: they will benefit the electorate of Lilley as well as the electorate of Petrie. Across the northern Brisbane belt, a total of 35 child-care places were allocated to family day care schemes. The demand was there, and the government has responded by putting additional places in this area.There is an extensive consultation process going on. It is about ensuring that community child-care needs are met and it is an ongoing process. Nobody on this side of the House is going to deny that it is an ongoing process. Neighbourhoods and electorates change. Into areas of my electorate—the Mango Hill area, for example—large numbers of young families are coming. It is very fluid; it changes on a regular basis, and so it is important that there be extensive consultation and that child-care needs are constantly looked at and reassessed.Since coming into office, the government has also increased spending on child care in each budget; it will provide over $8 billion over four years to 2005-06, including $6.6 billion for the child-care benefit. A record $1.36 billion was spent on child care in 2000-01. This is unparalleled. Today child care is much more affordable, with a record number of children—over 700,000—using child care. We must recognise that balancing work and family life is very important, with effective child care being what it is all about, not just for women but also for men and children. This government is about providing that opportunity and delivering on that commitment on which we base our family policy. For this reason, the opposition will always forget to mention how families are assisted and benefited by this government. As a government, we acknowledge that the issue of families should be significant across all policy areas. We are providing that balance between work and family, and we are providing more access than ever. I mentioned earlier the changes we have made to the Workplace Relations Act to provide that flexibility. We have one of the most affordable and flexible child-care systems ever. Demand for child care will continue to change as demographics change. Balancing work and family is about providing opportunities for members of all families in all circumstances. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Committees57735773577310000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that she has nominated members to be members of certain committees. 16:30:005773Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—by leave—I move:That:(1) Ms Ellis be discharged from the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs;(2) Mr Albanese be discharged from the Standing Committee on Ageing and that, in his place, Ms Ellis be appointed a member of the committee; and(3) Mr Cox be discharged from the Standing Committee on Education and Training and that, in his place, Mr Albanese be appointed a member of the committee.Question agreed to.Miscellaneous577416:31:005774Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—by leave—I move:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002; andCustoms Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 200216:31:005774Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I would very much like to support the referral of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 to the Main Committee. The Main Committee is a very important institution in the operations of this parliament. Indeed, when it was established, a report called About time, brought down by the then backbench committee headed by Dr Blewett, proposed at page 9:Referral would be by means of a resolution of the House following negotiation between the parties and any Independent members. In practice, as divisions on the motion would be time-wasting and counterproductive, the motion would not be moved without prior opposition agreement. That was something that we all thought was a very good idea if we were to ensure that the Main Committee operated in a bipartisan way and did not in any way take over the role of this chamber—the pre-eminent chamber, I might say, of the parliament. Certainly, the intention of the founders of the Main Committee was that the Main Committee was to be there for matters that were non-controversial, for matters on which there was agreement between the parties in the House of Representatives. So I can fully support the referral of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill to the Main Committee. This procedure was reinforced by the Procedure Committee in its report of July 2000 entitled The Second Chamber: enhancing the Main Committee. There its members talked about the evolution of the Main Committee as a vehicle for debating bills such as the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, and they referred to some controversy that had arisen about referrals to that committee. I quote from page 8 of that report:Rather than restricting bills to those upon which there was no disagreement, bills could be referred, even if they were controversial, but so long as it was agreed that it was appropriate to consider them in the Main Committee. Indeed, that is the process that has been followed with these two bills being referred to the Main Committee. That report then went on to observe that this procedure had changed with the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 but, as the report The Second Chamber noted, that bill was a private member's bill. So I am pleased that we are not speaking here today on bills which are private members' bills. We are speaking on bills which are government business, and that is entirely as it should be, and it is another reason why I can fully support the reference of these two bills to the Main Committee. The Second Chamber report observed, back in July 2000, that another unusual aspect of the reference was the fact that the bill was undoubtedly controversial. So that reference then was controversial—but it was a private member's bill.A third unusual aspect was the machinery employed to refer the bill: the suspension of standing orders. On that occasion, the then Leader of the House, in the debate that was had about the referral of a controversial matter to the Main Committee, made the point that, on that occasion, the bill could be referred to the Main Committee because it wasn't government business; on that occasion it was a private member's bill. So, even then, when there had been a contested referral of a bill to the Main Committee, the government of the time made the point expressly that that was because it was a private member's bill and it was not seeking to breach the convention and the understanding that established the Main Committee—that is, that controversial bills which are government business should not be referred to the Main Committee if there is controversy or disagreement about that process.I am pleased that we are referring these two bills to the Main Committee, because there is no controversy whatsoever about these bills, and this process will assist the operations of this chamber. If these were different bills, if they contained a controversial element, if they were bills which were important to the future of the nation—its social, economic, cultural and moral development—it might be another matter. If we were to refer such bills to the Main Committee, it would be like saying, `The grand final of Rugby League is very important; every year it is held at Stadium Australia; it is the pre-eminent contest in Rugby League. But this year we are going to shift the grand final from Stadium Australia down the road to the Homebush Primary School'—and that certainly would be a downgrading of the grand final. That is what is happening in the Main Committee at the moment. When these two bills go to the Main Committee, they will be blocked there by a bill which should not be dealt with in the Main Committee but on the floor of this House, because this House is the pre-eminent place where controversial and important matters affecting the cultural and moral development of this nation should be debated. What occurred in this House last night, when those bills were referred to the Main Committee, was the equivalent of taking the grand final away from Homebush stadium at half-time and sending it down the road to the Homebush Primary School. That is a fundamental abuse of the established procedures of this House. That abuse is one that cannot be tolerated because this parliament brought to itself new respect in the last couple of days by the way in which we dealt maturely with the stem cell legislation. But, as is typical of this government, that was suddenly strangled. What this government did was to take the parliament by the throat and strangle accountability and civility by sending a bill to the Main Committee which was controversial, on which there was no agreement from the opposition for its referral and which related to important matters before this nation. When the Leader of the House came into this parliament to deliver his speech on the stem cell legislation, he said:Let me ... say that this debate is fundamentally about the kind of country that we are. I agree. That is why it should be debated in this chamber, not in the sideshow two floors above. It should be debated here. If the Leader of the House believes that the stem cell debate will determine what sort of society we will become and that it is one of the most significant dialogues of ethical distinction in this country and the rest of the world, and if the Leader of the House cannot conceal his own fear that Australian morality will suffer should that bill be passed, why is he in this House forcibly pushing the bill to the Main Committee? He comes into this House and moralises and then sends the bill to a sideshow—a bill on which another 50 members of this House desire to speak.The Main Committee, where these bills are being referred, is currently not being properly used. It is being debauched. It is being debauched like parliamentary standards have been debauched in this House since the parliament resumed after the election—too few sitting days to begin with, then there was the debacle of the terrorism legislation which was rammed through the House in something like 16 hours. There was the debacle of the excision legislation which was debated in the House in quick time. Here we have, by the admission of the Leader of the House, the most important moral debate in the country not being debated in this House; it is just being rammed up to the Main Committee. So it goes up to the Main Committee when there are 50 members of this House who have not spoken. It has been great for the Leader of the House. He has been allowed a first-class conscience. He can debate it here, but that is no good for the rest of the people who want to speak—they get to express a second-class conscience in the Main Committee. It is not acceptable to the Australian Labor Party to have parliamentary standards debauched. The motion that was moved in this House yesterday to do that was not a motion to suspend standing orders; it was, in fact, a motion to amend the standing orders presented as a motion to suspend standing orders. Last night in the parliament, both here and in the Main Committee, we were trying to hold this government accountable and stop it debauching parliamentary standards and downgrading the views of all those members of parliament who have yet to speak in the Main Committee. As usual the Leader of the Government in the House put on his boxing shorts and rammed it through. He rammed it through, and the victims of all of this are not just the members of parliament who are yet to speak in the House; the victims are of course the people of Australia, who are denied their legitimate voice in the pre-eminent chamber of this parliament. This decision to abuse the Main Committee and to refer the stem cell legislation to the Main Committee will destroy any credibility that this government may have had left as a government that stands for accountability. This is the government that came to power on a promise of standing for an independent Speaker. This is the government that came to power on a promise of reforming the parliament. This is the government that came to power on a premise of better behaviour. At every opportunity they have had to show their wares, they have debauched parliamentary standards. While I can support the referral of these two bills to the Main Committee, I cannot support the debauching of the parliamentary practices of the House of Representatives.16:43:005776Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I strongly support the motion moved by the Chief Government Whip that these two non-controversial government bills be referred to the Main Committee. That is an entirely appropriate procedure. Since the instigation of the Main Committee by the House, we have seen similar motions moved on days like these for very many bills. All those bills have been appropriate and have been appropriately debated by the Main Committee and have been returned inevitably to this House for a final decision. On two occasions, we have seen inappropriate bills inappropriately referred to the Main Committee. The first occasion was a private member's bill, the euthanasia legislation sponsored by the member for Menzies, and more recently there was a piece of government legislation, the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Both those pieces of legislation were the subject of what is generally known as a conscience vote—that means they go to moral and ethical values of the parliament, the parliament's members and senators and the community. They were highly contentious. They are highly contentious. It was entirely inappropriate on both those occasions to refer those bills to the Main Committee and not to have that debate conducted here. That is why I strongly support the reference of these two bills, because that reference draws attention to an entirely appropriate mechanism, an entirely appropriate procedure and an entirely appropriate use of the Main Committee. On the two occasions when there have been inappropriate references to the Main Committee, so far as the euthanasia legislation was concerned Mr Reith, the then Leader of the House, and on this occasion Mr Abbott, the Leader of the House, sent the bills to the Main Committee on a motion, supported by division, which included two significant changes: that, during consideration of the bill in the Main Committee, the quorum of the committee would be three members, comprising the occupant of the chair and two other members, and that the Main Committee would continue debate on the bill regardless of any unresolved questions. The first of those procedural mechanisms destroys the basis of the committee in this respect: the standing orders provide that the quorum of the Main Committee is one member of the opposition and one member of the government. The second device— namely, the use of unresolved matters—destroys the fundamental basis of the Main Committee, which is that one dissenting voice will see matters returned to the House for deliberation. During question time today—16:46:005776Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPLeader of the House10—I move:That the question be now put.Question put.16:50:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. I.R. Causley) 73Abbott, 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.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.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.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.61Albanese, A.N.Beazley, 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.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.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.Wilkie, K.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.Original question agreed to.Committees57775777577716:57:005777Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)10000PON/A10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 16 September 2002.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 16 September 2002Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 16 September 2002. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows:COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 Procedure—Standing COMMITTEE: Discussion paper—Proposed revised standing orders.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 12.50 p.m.Speech time limits—First 2 Members speaking—7 minutes.Other Members—3 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 7 mins, 2 x 3 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Mr S. F. 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. (Tobacco Excise Windfall Recovery (Assessment) Bill 2002—Notice given 26 August 2002.)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes —pursuant to standing order 104A.2 Mr HAWKER to move:That this House:(1) recognises the significant contribution Australia's defence servicemen and women are making overseas in places including East Timor, the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan;(2) praises the skills, dedication and professionalism of these fine young Australians;(3) draws these matters to the attention of Parliament and all Australians; and(4) acknowledges the success of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Programme in giving Members of Parliament a greater understanding and better appreciation of the commitment of our defence force personnel. (Notice given 22 August 2002.)Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 Mr MOSSFIELD to move:That this House:(1) acknowledges that:(a) quality access to the Internet and to information technology in general is becoming a necessity, rather than a luxury, in modern Australian society; and(b) infrastructure is not keeping pace with technological advancements, particularly in new and developing suburbs on the outer metropolitan fringe of Australia's capital cities;(2) notes that:(a) Telstra and Optus discontinued its cable roll-out before many of the new, outer metropolitan, suburbs existed;(b) the existing location of Telstra exchanges means that ADSL is unavailable in many developing suburbs;(c) there has been an increase in the use of “split pair gains” as a method of providing basic telephone services to developing suburbs which is also incompatible with ADSL; and(d) satellite is the only broadband delivery system available to many Australians and that this is the most expensive broadband service available; and(3) calls on the Government to:(a) investigate the true extent of this problem facing many Australians in developing communities;(b) examine whether Telstra's Community Service Obligation is adequate when dealing with broadband delivery services; and(c) develop a comprehensive solution to the problem of lack of access to broadband services. (Notice given 19 August 2002.)Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4 Ms GEORGE to move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the pain and suffering of Australians living with the disease - Adhesive Arachnoiditis;(2) accepts that many current sufferers were at some time involved in a spinal x-ray procedure known as a myelogram;(3) believes that an independent inquiry is necessary to investigate:(a) the effects of exposure to the chemical Iophendylate (marketed under the name Pantopaque and Myodil);(b) the basis on which Iophendylate was licensed, marketed and used in Australia; and(c) the social and economic costs arising from the disease;(4) acknowledges the important work undertaken by the support group - Chemically Induced Adhesive Arachnoiditis Sufferers of Australia and its founder Derek Morrison; and(5) requests the Government to provide some resources and assistance to the Committee to enable it to carry on its worthwhile work which up until now has been done on a voluntary basis. (Notice given 21 August 2002.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.5779577916:57:005779Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the first report of the committee for 2002 relating to the proposed common use infrastructure on Christmas Island.Ordered that the report be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—The report specifically deals with the improvements to Christmas Island Airport, in particular the extension of the airport runway 460 metres north and 90 metres south. The current runway length and strength are inadequate for the freighter aircraft 747-400 and the Antonov required for the space launch facility. Without the proposed airport upgrade, the Asia Pacific Space Centre operations cannot proceed. The estimated cost of the airport upgrade is $51.3 million. I should note that on 9 August 2001 a similar proposal was referred to the committee by the Department of Transport and Regional Services. That reference lapsed as a result of the prorogation of parliament on 8 October. That proposal included an airport upgrade, an additional port on the east coast and a new link road from the east coast to Lily Beach Road. Prior to prorogation, the department applied to the committee for concurrent documentation. The committee granted its approval in September 2001 on the grounds of the urgent nature of the project. Such approval allowed the department to undertake preliminary planning associated with the project.The proposal referred to the committee on 21 March 2002 deals only with upgrades to Christmas Island Airport and does not include the additional port and new link road. These two projects were incorporated into the infrastructure work associated with the Christmas Island immigration reception and processing centre and were the subject of an expediency motion moved in the House of Representatives the same day by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration. The airport upgrade will provide improved services for the Christmas Island community and a facility for large-bodied aircraft. Attracting large-bodied aircraft is essential to the Christmas Island economy. The airport generates revenue from landing charges based on aircraft tonnage. Present forecasts indicate that the number of aircraft using the airport would rise from 423 to approximately 1,350 in 2006.The proposal as presented to the committee posed three major challenges. The first challenge was the lack of emergency services at the airport, including fire tenders and associated vehicle storage facilities. While these services were included in the original referral in August last year, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority—CASA—considered that these services would not now be required because of low airport utilisation. The committee does not accept CASA's exemption on the firefighting services, particularly as the upgraded airport is designed to cater for increased traffic associated with the operations of the Asia Pacific Space Centre. As a result, the committee has recommended that an urgent approach be made by the Department of Transport and Regional Services to CASA to remove its exemption of the provision of emergency services to the airport.The second area of concern relates to the operation of Christmas Island Phosphates. This company is currently the largest business and employer on the island. The committee is keen to ensure that employment prospects for the local community are not adversely affected by any loss of potential mining areas as a consequence of the airport upgrade. To this end, the committee has recommended that the Department of Transport and Regional Services enter into a dialogue with Christmas Island Phosphates in order to reach a compromise with regard to the removal of phosphate deposits from areas affected by the airport improvements. The company's activities, however, should not impact on the cost or the time frame for this project.The third issue relates to the possible impact on the local infrastructure and services as a result of an anticipated increase in workers associated with the public works projects. From observation and discussion with the local community, the committee was left in no doubt that any inflow of numbers of people to the island could impose a serious burden on services. The committee has therefore recommended that the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government consider a social impact study and, if necessary, institute action to upgrade the island's infrastructure and services to ensure that the local community is in no way disadvantaged by an increase in the population.The committee supports this project and believes that, irrespective of the space centre proceeding, an upgraded airport for Christmas Island would help to decrease the isolation of the local community by improving its air services. The committee also expects that the project would generate employment opportunities for the local community as well as developing the local skills base. The committee has recommended, therefore, that the proposed common use infrastructure project on Christmas Island proceed, at a cost of $51.3 million, pending approval of the draft environmental impact statement and the fulfilment of the recommendations made in the report.Many people assisted the committee during the inspections and the public hearing on Christmas Island. In particular, I mention the exceptional effort of the Administrator, Mr Bill Taylor, and thank him and his staff for their assistance. As many colleagues would remember, Mr Taylor was a member of this chamber for many years and a member of the Public Works Committee. His knowledge of the operations of the committee was helpful in that respect, in carrying out this inquiry in a very isolated locality. I also thank my colleagues—my deputy chair, the member for Burke, and the committee members—for their positive contribution and support. On behalf of the committee, I also thank the secretariat staff and the Hansard staff, who travelled to a very remote location. We appreciated their support throughout this inquiry. I commend the report to the House.17:05:005780O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr BRENDAN O'CONNOR00AN3BurkeALP00—by leave—I am happy to rise to supplement the report that has already been presented by the chairperson of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works in relation to the proposed common use infrastructure on Christmas Island.As indicated, the construction of the addition to Christmas Island Airport was referred to the Public Works Committee, pursuant to a notice moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, on Thursday, 21 March this year. Efforts by the committee to properly consider this proposal have been considerable. It is fitting to remark upon the visit by the committee to Christmas Island, involving inspections and the examination of relevant witnesses with respect to the project. This visit led to a number of recommendations that are contained in the report that may not have been made without such an important visit. In particular, the recommendation that the Department of Transport and Regional Services approach the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to lift its exemption on the provision of emergency services at the airport is, as I see it, a very important recommendation. Clearly, on the evidence we evinced from the examination of witnesses, there seems to be no reason why the airport on Christmas Island should not have adequate fire and emergency services. I am therefore very happy to make reference specifically to that matter.Further, I consider it important for the department to reach a reasonable compromise with regard to the removal of phosphate deposits from areas affected by the airport upgrades without the company's activities impacting on the cost or time frame of the project. That is an important recommendation, and I will touch upon that issue. In both formal and other discussions, I think it was clear that the island relies upon the mine for employment. Over recent times, there has been a reduction of employment levels in that company. Clearly, we would not want to see any reductions in employment levels where they are not necessary. It is quite critical that the department enters into discussions about the best way to mitigate any adverse effects of this construction in order to ensure that there is minimal impact upon employment. Finally, I remind the House that it has been recommended that this project on Christmas Island should not proceed until the environmental impact statement has been approved. Indeed, this caveat is referred to in the report.I thank the Christmas Islanders for their hospitality and the Christmas Island administration for welcoming us very warmly. In particular, I thank Mr Gordon Thompson, the Secretary of the Christmas Island Workers Union, and his colleagues, who met with us. I appreciated not only his hospitality but also the additional perspective he gave me on what was happening on the island and on the important social and economic factors that should be considered in relation to this matter.The proposed upgrade to the airport will provide improved services for the community and a facility, as already indicated, for a large-bodied aircraft. It will specifically enable the proposed operation of the commercial space launch facility by the Asia Pacific Space Centre, as indicated by the chair. I commend the report to the House.I will conclude by briefly commenting on the government's decision to propose the construction of an immigration reception and processing centre at Christmas Island without it being referred to the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. The expediency motion referred to by the chair in her report on behalf of the committee—and any motion of that kind—should be used, I submit, only in the rarest of circumstances. I do not consider this incident to be among those where it might be properly used. It would have been proper, I contend, for the Public Works Committee to properly examine the construction of this centre and to ensure that public funds are not misspent on this major project. The construction of the centre will mean up to 1,200 detainees and possibly 300 or 400 employees. If that were to take place, the population of the island could potentially double. It seems to me that such an important project, which would normally be under the auspices of the committee, should have been properly examined.In speaking to the expediency motion, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration rationalised excluding the Public Works Committee by saying that it was due to the need to fast-track the construction to ensure that the full facility would be completed in the last few months of this year. I promise the government that I will closely monitor the progress of this matter to see whether the construction was fast-tracked or whether the Public Works Committee was contemptuously treated. Either way, the expediency motion should be used, as I said, in only the most extraordinary of circumstances. The construction of a detention centre on Christmas Island does not, I respectfully submit, fit that criterion.17:11:005781Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—by leave—Although I am not a member of the Public Works Committee, I would like to take the opportunity to endorse the recommendations of the committee, insofar as I have heard them. From what I have heard, the committee members have done a very good and commendable job in attuning themselves very quickly to some major and significant issues to do with infrastructure development on Christmas Island. I have been travelling to and from Christmas Island as its federal member for all but a short period of two years since 1987, and I have seen a great many changes take place on that island and to its community. One thing is obvious to those who fly in there often: an upgrade of that airport has been required for some time. Whilst we have been able to secure this upgrade as a result of the potential—and the current—development of a space launch facility by the Asia Pacific Space Centre on Christmas Island due to their requirement that heavy lift aircraft are able to use the airport, it should be noted that the airport has been a major limiting factor for some time. The spin-off, as the chair rightly said in her remarks, for the community of getting the airstrip extended and improved will be that passenger aircraft of a significant size that could otherwise not visit the island will now be able to do so.That is very important, because traditionally the island—as both the chair and the deputy chair pointed out—has been almost solely reliant over the last decade on the work of Christmas Island Phosphates for private employment and for the spin-offs from that into small businesses in the community. Apart from that, the only other moneys being spent on the island come out of the Commonwealth purse. The significant contributors to the island's economy have been the Commonwealth and Christmas Island Phosphates. We need to contemplate what that has meant. One of the reasons this runway work is so very important is that it will enable the marketing of the island as a tourist destination far more readily than has been possible previously. Therefore, the airport is a very important spin-off of investment by the Asia Pacific Space Centre people.The other matter I would like to refer to briefly is the comments by the chair on the issue of a social impact study. I, too, believe this is very important as a social impact study and have raised the matter in this chamber previously. It seems to me there is a real chance that, whilst many small businesses on the island are benefiting to a substantial degree from current government investments arising out of these improvements to the island—the airport, the link road and the port facility—they are also experiencing growth as a result of the investment into the reception facility and will receive substantial benefits from the space facility.There is no doubt that the small business community on Christmas Island is doing very well out of these processes, and it does provide an alternative employment option for a range of people in the community. What I am concerned about is making sure that people are not disadvantaged. There is a real threat here of people being overlooked because they perhaps do not have the skills that are required to work in those particular areas. I hope that, in looking at this work, both the government and the private sector players involved in these developments—including but not exclusively in terms of the airport—have some regard for the need to train up available local labour to take the jobs and not import all the labour from the mainland or elsewhere.There is also a significant impact on the cost of living on the island, because housing has been in crisis for some time as a result of the dramatic growth in population. That clearly raises costs for the island community—that is, the existing community as well as potential newcomers to the community. These are issues which need to be properly understood, and I do not believe they are properly understood at this point. A whole range of attendant matters arise in terms of infrastructure development, which were alluded to by the chair. They include educational services and health services, both of which have had substantial investment over the last decade but, with the potential for the population to more than double in a very short space of time, it seems to me that there needs to be a lot more work done in that area.Finally, the other point that I would like to make, which, from what I can gather, was not referred to by the chair or the deputy chair—and I am not sure whether it is covered by the report, because I have only just picked it up—is about the question of governance. What we are seeing here are massive changes to the old economy, largely taken as a result of Commonwealth initiatives and, in large part, with little reference to the island community. In a sense, things have been going higgledy-piggledy and out of control in terms of the ability of the island community to get hold of what is going on around them. I think that places enormous pressures on the community's own decision making capacity, particularly regarding how the shire council works and the areas which they might logically believe that they would have some control over. I ask that, in the context of this social impact study, the issue of governance be examined as well to make sure that the island community is able to say that they are in control of what happens on the island—as far as that is possible, bearing in mind that the Commonwealth has already made significant decisions—and that we work towards giving them far more power in their everyday lives. Currently, as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I know the chair would be aware of this—Minister Tuckey is effectively minister for everything and can make decisions about almost every matter. Every law that applies on the island can be changed by him by mere regulation. The laws that apply to the island in terms of state type functions are Western Australian laws which are done by agreement with the Western Australian government and can be amended from time to time as required by the minister. That is only one example, but it is clear that decisions are being made external to the community without their proper input and without proper consultation or, I submit, without the need to negotiate with them. I would ask that the chair, when she is contemplating this issue of the social impact study—if she has any influence—ensure that governance becomes an issue which is dealt with within the context of that study. Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. It is my pleasure to support the comments that have been made by the chair and the deputy chair and, I am sure, the subsequent report. 57835783The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley) (5.19 p.m.)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Ferris has been discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund.Bills5783R1576BillsR15215783Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Mrs Vale:That this bill be now read a second time.17:19:005783Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 and cognate bill, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002. I start from a position of great respect, firstly, for the work of the veterans and of those who have supported them within the electorate of Flinders—their spouses, be they those with living partners or be they war widows—and, secondly, for all of those veterans who have served within Australia more generally and for all of those who have supported them, be they fortunate enough to have their partner alive or be they now of the status of war widows. In particular, I want to pay great respect to the work of the RSL and also to the War Widows Guild, both of which are organisations which support those men and women who have served Australia both in times of conflict and in times of peace.Ten days ago, I was fortunate enough to have attended the Vietnam Veterans Day memorial ceremony at HMAS Cerberus within my electorate. After this moving and beautiful ceremony, the party retired to the Hastings RSL. At the Hastings RSL, under the very warm and friendly leadership of its president, Trevor Laurence, and its secretary, Leo Leeder, there was an ongoing discussion. In the course of that discussion, I was fortunate enough to speak with four widows. All of these widows appreciated the support they were given and respected the position of the government, but sought two things: clarity and fairness in their entitlements. These bills today go to the heart of those two issues of adding greater clarity and even greater fairness to the entitlements available to the widows of those who have served our country. In particular, these bills would affect a large number of widows and widowers. The core budget measures ensure that veterans and their families' entitlements will not be diminished over time and that there is protection of the fundamental economic base for their entitlements.It is expected that 81,000 war widows—that is 97 per cent of all widows currently receiving some level of income support supplement or service pension— will benefit. So 81,000 beneficiaries—97 per cent of all widows—are currently receiving some support under the income support supplement or service pension. As part of this package, the government is proposing to expend $84.7 million over four years. When that is averaged out, over $1,000 will be spent over a four-year period for each of the pensioners who will be beneficiaries. These are significant, meaningful and respectful increases and benefits for the war widows and other beneficiaries under these schemes. In looking at this legislation I want to examine three elements in more detail: firstly, the government's record in assisting veterans and war widows; secondly, the provisions of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002; and, thirdly, the provisions of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002.If we look at the government's record since 1996, we see that it has sought to improve the conditions available for veterans and for their families and spouses. In particular, there have been three categories of critical initiatives. The first category is what may be called compensation initiatives—initiatives which have been put in place since 1996. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, pension rights have been restored to those who lost their benefits on remarriage. What this is saying is that there is an entitlement based on service and that it is a sign of respect for the contribution that was made in supporting their partners whilst they were overseas. Secondly, a program was established to eliminate anomalies within the repatriation system for Australia's South-East Asia veterans from the period 1955-75—those who served in Indonesia, Malaysia and in Vietnam. As a result, full repatriation benefits have been extended to over 2,600 veterans.The second set of initiatives which have been taken since 1996 to assist veterans and their spouses are care initiatives. Firstly, there was the introduction of the Veterans' Home Care Program. The essence of this is that it provided services designed to allow veterans to remain in their own homes when they have experienced medical difficulty. It gives them the dignity of remaining in their own homes and the opportunity to live a full life at home with the support of a genuine care program, which is a counterpart to the government's home and community care program for elderly citizens more generally. In addition, there was a further $32.3 million support program for counselling for Vietnam veterans, which came about as a result of the Vietnam Veterans' Health Study. Furthermore, recently the government made the decision to provide the gold card to over 38,000 Australian veterans aged 70 or over with World War II experience. Beyond that, as at 1 July we extended the benefits of the gold card to all veterans over the age of 70 with qualifying overseas service. So irrespective of whether someone served overseas in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam or more recently in Iraq, Afghanistan or East Timor, at the time that they reach 70 they will all receive a gold card in recognition of the service that they have given to Australia. The third set of initiatives are those which may be roughly termed as commemoration initiatives. Firstly, there was $5 million for the documentary series Australians at War. This was aimed at increasing an understanding of and appreciation for the level of service and, ultimately, the level of sacrifice made by Australian veterans. There was the Their Service Our Heritage program. The 2000 budget provided $17.2 million for this program over four years, and as a result of that there were a series of education publications including Valuing our Veterans, which provides practical suggestions for schools and community groups on how they can best record and make use of the memories of their veterans. In addition, the North Beach Gallipoli 1915 publication provides a guide for visitors to this important site. As we can see over the last few years, all the empirical evidence is that there has been an increase not only in the practical appreciation of the service of our veterans and their families but also in the number of people who pay formal homage, whether it be at the Anzac Day ceremonies, the Vietnam Veterans Day ceremonies within Australia, at Gallipoli or at any of the places where our war dead and those who served are remembered. As a consequence of that we are able to see that there has been a critical increase in the status and the conditions of our veterans and their families within our community.This brings me to the provisions of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002. This bill is aimed at clarity. The bill, which was first introduced in autumn 2002, makes minor technical and consequential changes to several acts. The essence of the bill is that it allows a seamless shift for veterans from Centrelink to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The goal is for all veterans to receive all of their veterans benefits from Veterans' Affairs rather than to have a mixed system. So it clears up an older, unwieldy system. It is about simplifying life for veterans and providing them with an easy way to deal with those issues which are of importance to them. So whilst the bill has minimal financial impacts, it has an important role in providing a simpler system for veterans, and in particular for their spouses.I want to turn now to the second bill, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002. This bill is primarily about fairness. The bill allows for an end to the freeze on the ceiling rate of the income support supplement—the ISS—and the service pension to Australian war widows and widowers. The bill provides for the ceiling rate to be indexed twice yearly to reflect changes in the cost of living and wages. In this year's budget $84.7 mil-lion was allocated for the coming four years. As I mentioned earlier, 81,000 beneficiaries—97 per cent of all widows currently in receipt of relevant pens-ions—will benefit. On average, each of these 81,000 bene-ficiaries will receive up to $1,000 over the course of four years—real results, large numbers of people, practical benefits.In addition to this core change to the ceiling rates, the bill contains less significant amendments which are designed to tackle anomalies—in particular, the payment of the ISS to new widows, who previously would have received social security benefits. It will protect them from falling into a gap when they move from social security benefits to the ISS, and that is a critical step which will ensure that there is no shortfall in their payment and that they do not suffer economic hardship as a result of that.Ultimately, when I return to the Hastings RSL and to the war widows and veterans there, this bill is about paying respect for the service they have given, and it is about ensuring that there is greater clarity in the benefits they receive and that there is fairness in the way in which they receive those benefits. In the end, it is about recognition of the service that veterans have given, and it is a simple, practical step which, above all else, ensures that there will be 81,000 beneficiaries receiving $84.7 million over four years—and that is a due and fair recognition of the service of the veterans and of the support they have been given by their families. I am delighted to commend these bills to the House.17:31:005785Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 proposes minor amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and related acts. The amendments were necessary to ensure consistency of treatment between acts and to ensure that the Veterans' Entitlements Act is kept up to date with amendments made to related acts. The second bill we are discussing is the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002. Its purpose is to provide legislative support for the unfreezing of the rate of the income support supplement which is paid to recipients of the war widows pension. It is proposed to increase the rate of ISS twice yearly, in March and September, which would bring it into line with other indexed pensions. Neither bill is controversial and both will be supported by this side of the House. These bills are essentially a grab bag. Because there are a lot of different elements to them, this debate allows discussion of general issues affecting veterans, as other members have already mentioned. What is not addressed in these bills is almost as important as what is contained within their provisions. These bills do a lot, but they could have done a whole lot more. One issue that needs addressing but has not been addressed by this government is the totally and permanently incapacitated pension—the TPI. The TPI rate is well below male total average weekly earnings and has fallen dramatically since the Second World War. In June 1941, the TPI rate was 76.9 per cent of average weekly earnings. In June 2000, it was only 43.7 per cent. This is a massive drop in the TPI value. Many families living on the TPI pension are finding it difficult to make ends meet. Many younger TPI veterans no longer have the capacity to create a solid financial base for their families. They have not had the opportunity to work in industry, many still have children at school and mortgages to pay, and many do not have the access to superannuation that older workers have. These veterans are now suffering poor health due to their war service, and they see TPI payments and the other entitlements as little compensation for risking their lives for their country. TPI lost its benchmark in 1975-76 and has had only CPI increases since then. This erosion of income has hurt those who are on this compensation to the point where, in 1982, a service pension was added to those TPIs who had entitlements in the form of an income support supplement—which, of course, is the subject of the second bill being debated today. The original intention of the service pension was purely as an alternative to the age pension. Vietnam veterans have complained that there is no appeals tribunal to take complaints to, apart from going to the ministerial level, and appeals to this level have fallen on deaf ears to date. Another issue affecting payment of the TPI pension is in some cases where an application has been lodged and all of the medical documentation has been provided, and the claim has been rejected by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is of concern to veterans that their medical certificates are being overruled by non-medical DVA officers. Veterans are also of the view that gold card entitlement should be extended to partners of veterans. Partners are also affected by the ill health of veterans, many of whom suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders and other illnesses which partners also have to live with. While on the subject of the gold card, can I also say that, now that the government have extended the benefits of the card, they are now obliged to ensure that the card is of some actual use. It is no use extending the benefits of the card if doctors refuse to accept it from patients. There has been an increased incidence of doctors refusing to accept the gold card—and the shadow minister, Senator Mark Bishop, has done a fine job of informing members and the veterans community about this. There is a range of issues surrounding the reasons why gold cards are beginning to be refused, but the bottom line is that the government promised veterans free medical care and now they must ensure that their promise is kept. These are a few of the issues that arise in these two bills, and they have also arisen at a meeting of Vietnam veterans and partners which is held on a regular basis at the Blacktown RSL and which veterans and partners from many electorates attend.I would now like to broaden my remarks a little and refer to some general issues that are of concern to our veterans community across Australia. One issue is the inclusion of the veterans disability pension in the Centrelink means test. Veterans disability pensions are compensation for veterans for illness and injury caused by war service for their country. The government has indicated that it is considering this issue, but no decision has yet been made. Centrelink exempts the pain and suffering portion of settlements arising out of workers compensation claims, so why not exempt the payments made for pain and suffering arising out of war service? The Current issues publication, produced on behalf of veterans, said:It has [the government] abandoned the principle that soldiers wounded in war get free medical treatment, it has reduced many veterans pensions income through its Centrelink policies and it continues to slug veterans compensation by having it counted as income at Centrelink. It is also continuing its attempts to have our independent appeals body, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, brought under the control of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, (putting the fox in charge of the chickens).Another issue raised by veterans organisations is the increase in cost of medical prescriptions. Initially veterans were not charged for prescriptions but, in January 1997, veterans were forced to pay 50c for each of their first 52 medical prescriptions each year. In January this year, the government raised that payment to 70c, putting veterans out of pocket by $36.40 a year. This may not seem much but, when you are living on a pension, every little increase hurts. In the budget brought down this year, this surcharge was increased a further $1, to $1.70, for the first 52 scripts, which makes the yearly cost $88.40. You will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, that this is a significant amount out of any war pension.Another issue warranting comment in this debate is the request by the AMA for the government to agree to maintain access by veterans to private medical services under the Repatriation Private Patients Scheme. The RPPS is administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and is promoted to the veteran community as entitling veterans with gold card access to specialist medical services as private patients in doctors' rooms and at private hospitals. The AMA argues, and I quote from their letter to federal members of parliament:The commercial realities of contemporary medical practice have made continued support for the RPPS by the profession extremely difficult. The government has allowed the CMBS to lag behind the escalation in the cost of medical practice, while progressively increasing the number of veterans with gold cards and shifting veterans into the private health care sector.It is important that veterans continue to utilise specialist treatment. The government needs to negotiate agreement with the AMA to allow this to happen. It all goes back to what was promised with the gold card. A solution needs to be found for our veterans, who deserve to be looked after.While we are on the subject of the gold card, I again call for its extension to cover those people who were used as guineapigs by our government and the British government during the nuclear testing at Monte Bello, Emu Field and Maralinga. Their health is deteriorating and they deserve our compassion and our help. The extension of the gold card to these ex-servicemen would take away the angst and hassles when they seek medical treatment for the numerous illnesses that have been caused by their close proximity to a nuclear blast. I refer in particular to two people I am personally aware of: Mr Keith Harrison and Mr Vic Herman.Keith Harrison has been campaigning for appropriate compensation for servicemen who were exposed to the atomic tests on Australian soil. In 1952, Keith was a sailor on HMAS Hawkesbury and spent six months attached to the British fleet during the atomic tests. HMAS Hawkesbury was anchored 11 miles from where the bombs were detonated, and the crew were told to simply turn their backs during the explosion. In recent times, Keith has suffered major health problems relating to his naval service but, because he is not classified as a veteran, he has not been able to obtain access to a gold card, which would entitle him to full medical benefits. Keith has recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer. The difficulty here is that, while Keith is an ex-serviceman, because he was technically not in a war zone he does not qualify as a veteran. This is a technicality that is quite unnecessary at this time. I would also like to give some details concerning Victor Herman, who was similarly exposed to the atomic test blast at Monte Bello. Victor was conscripted for compulsory six-month national service training in August 1952. Having previously been a member of the RAN reserve, Vic was posted, along with other national service trainees, to HMAS Murchison. The Murchison patrolled the eastern side of the Monte Bello Islands and the Royal Navy patrolled the western side. For three days, the Murchison sailed in an area ranging from 10 to 20 miles from the blast area. On the day of the nuclear blast, the crew were all assembled on the upper deck and then informed about the impending atomic blast test. This was the first time they had been informed that the test would take place. The crew were told to turn their backs away from the blast, which was about 12 miles away, and not to turn around until after the initial blast. This was a gross act of negligence, considering the information that was available after the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.These are just two cases where technicalities are preventing these ex-servicemen from getting appropriate compensation. Victor Herman has written to me a couple of times. In his latest letter, he enclosed a letter from the department, rejecting his claim. He said:Further to my last letter, I have received another knock-back for Military Compensation from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Enclosed is a copy of the letter. I have read their letter many times and do not know which way to turn to achieve acceptance of my claim for compensation after being exposed to atomic radiation at the Monte Bello Atomic Blast Test, 3 October 1952. Frank, if there is anyway you can help me sort this out `War of words, terminology and definitions', your help would be most appreciated.I will refer to a part of that letter, which I think might indicate the frustration that Mr Herman is experiencing. The letter reads:Although the evidence which is available to me at present does not substantiate ionising radiation exposure which would be relevant to your claim for compensation, you may wish to further investigate the possibility of such exposure by contacting National Archives by telephone, fax or by searching the information available through the Internet. You may also wish to provide evidence from other sources in an effort to establish that ionising radiation exposure relevant to your claim actually occurred.That statement seems to me to be saying that it does not totally rule out the possibility of ionising radiation exposure as the possible cause of some of Mr Herman's cancers; however, it appears to throw the onus to carry out further research onto the shoulders of the victim, Mr Herman, when I would have thought that this responsibility rests with the government. I suggest that a more humane and less legalistic approach to veterans' claims would result in these people feeling good about their service to their country rather than feeling neglected and forgotten.As I have said, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, along with its counterpart, the No. 2 bill, which was previously debated in the Main Committee, are simply housekeeping bills—a grab bag of things to tidy up the legislation. The Bills Digest for the No. 1 bill said that it has `probably been on the “nice to do when able to fit in with the parliamentary legislative program” list for quite some time'. This is probably accurate, but it is also quite dismissive of the veterans community. As I have said, this bill does a lot, but it could have done so much more. It is a housekeeping bill, not a substantial one, and this government needs to realise that the veterans community and the legislation concerning them need more than just housekeeping; they need substantial changes and support. I have been listening to the veterans community in my area; Senator Mark Bishop, our shadow minister for veterans' affairs, has visited Greenway and addressed a public meeting as part of the Labor policy review. Labor is out there listening, consulting and building a policy framework that will serve the veterans community well. Obviously every wish cannot be granted, but every promise made should be delivered. This government has a lot of work to do to ensure that the promises it has made to veterans are delivered—and it can start with the gold card.Veterans issues are extremely important and often quite complex. There are distinct groups within the veteran community, and they have different needs. World War II veterans face different life challenges today than do Vietnam veterans, as they faced very different circumstances during their conflicts. If the United States's self-appointed deputy sheriff, the Prime Minister, and the foreign minister, the member for Mayo, continue to think that they are still in a Sylvester Stallone movie, then there will be a lot more veterans joining the community in the not too distant future. Again, these veterans will have a very different experience of war and a vastly different set of repatriation needs. I do not think that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is in the position to cope with the flexibility needed to address the very different problems faced by the different veterans around Australia. One size definitely does not fit all when it comes to the World War II veterans, the Korean veterans, the Vietnam veterans, the Gulf War veterans and the soon-to-be Afghanistan veterans—and possibly the Gulf War II veterans. We need to have a debate about whether we send troops to Iraq—whether to create more veterans for the department to deal with—not a debate about housekeeping needed at the Department of Veterans' Affairs. But, as usual, the government misses the big picture and the big issues. Finally, we are left simply to discuss this non-controversial bill that tinkers at the edges of administration rather than tackles the big issues that a parliament like ours should be debating. Both Labor and I will be supporting this bill, but I urge the government to openly debate the real and profound issues that surround the veterans community.17:49:005789Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 in the House today. Over the years that I have been in this place, many servicemen and their wives and, indeed, members of the War Widows Guild of Australia have been to see me in regard to appropriate payment for women who have spent the better part of their lives caring for husbands who have come back from wars and serving our country. Apart from having to care for their families alone, sometimes for substantial periods of time, these women have often had to dedicate their lives to looking after a spouse who has returned with injuries that affect their ability to work and fully participate in family and social life. And, of course, many women were faced with the situation of their partner or spouse never returning at all. So it is an important piece of legislation to ensure adequate support and care for partners of people serving our country in the military services.I have started by talking about women, and I think that is an important issue, particularly in this day and age. We have seen our forces serve in the Gulf, in East Timor and in Afghanistan—all very dangerous places to be at the height of the troubles—and often in peacekeeping missions, which are also quite dangerous, in different parts of the world. We have seen many more women now in active service than perhaps at any other time in our history, so this legislation refers not only to widows but to widowers.The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the unfreezing of the rate of income support supplement paid to the recipients of the war widows or widowers pension. This income support supplement can be paid in addition to the war widows pension, but at a lower rate than other income support pensions. This is in recognition that the war widows pension is also paid. The proposal is to reverse a decision made by the Labor government in 1986 to pass legislation that froze the rate of income support payment. It was purely a budget saving measure where the government was looking to curb spending and to rationalise welfare assistance. This was made very clear in a speech by the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator the Hon. Arthur Gietzelt, admitting to the need to incorporate very large reductions in spending. So it was that a lower and frozen rate of income support payment was introduced.The change we are debating today has been a long time coming. I am pleased that the representations of many of the war widows and guild members in my electorate of Pearce, and others in Western Australia, have been heeded by the Howard government and that this change is finally being introduced through this legislation. The measures were carefully considered by the government when they were first proposed in a policy paper called `Supporting those who served'. In this paper the government promised that, if elected, it would abolish the frozen ceiling rate of income support. That commitment was specifically to introduce twice-yearly indexation of the income support payment to increases in the male total average weekly earnings—otherwise known MTAWE—or in the consumer price index—the CPI—whichever is the greater.Last year, the total number of people receiving the war widows pension was 110,656, of which 79,491 were also receiving some rate of income support payment and nearly 70,000 were receiving the maximum frozen rate of income support payment. This is a significant number of people, mostly women, who will benefit from the first six-monthly indexation increase, which applies from 20 September this year. The indexation increase factor used is that applied to the single rate of service pension. Both the age pension and the service pension are currently indexed twice yearly, using the CPI or the MTAWE, whichever is the higher.It was interesting to read some of the historical background to the support of returned service men and women and their families. The Parliamentary Library provided a very good summary in the Digest to this bill. The Defence Act 1903 did provide compensation in case of death, injury or disease contracted while on active duty, but the Commonwealth Compensation Act in 1912 provided for members of the Defence Force not on active service with a rate of payment for total and partial incapacity for work based on workers average weekly earnings. By 1914 the War Pensions Act was introduced and provided for payment of war pensions to dependants of incapacitated and deceased members of the Defence Force. It is interesting to note that the war widows pension was paid as a compensation for war loss, not as income support or income maintenance. The war widows pension and war disability pension have never been subject to an income or assets test. There is a notion that war widows payment is an income support system like other pension payments. It is not and never has been the intention to treat the payment like other incomes assistance such as the pension; it has always been paid as compensation for war loss.The bill also includes consequential amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 arising from the introduction of the income support supplement in 1995. The amendments will remove the remaining anomalies in those acts that were caused by the absence of a reference to the income support supplement. Some of those adversely affected by the anomalies included the surviving partners of war widows and widowers who are ineligible for a bereavement payment under the Social Security Act.The coalition have had a strong long-term commitment to the care of veterans and their families. These measures add to a long list of improvements the coalition government have made, since coming to office in 1996, to support veterans and their families. Whether it is compensation, care or the commemoration of veterans' service to their nation, the coalition have delivered significant improvement to their support and care. These measures give effect to the coalition's election promises. I was very pleased when, in June, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs visited Merriwa in my electorate when she was on a visit to Western Australia and announced a contribution of more than $1 million in federal government funding to help build new nursing homes and to upgrade existing facilities in Western Australia to look after ageing veterans. There are a large number of veterans and their survivors at Merriwa, and the RAAF Association have received a grant of $528,000 towards construction of the Edwards Lodge at Merriwa. This will be a 48-bed facility offering both high and low care, with one-third of the beds dedicated to providing care for members of the veteran community. The RAAF Association at Merriwa is committed to honouring the wartime service of Australian aviators. The lodge will be named in honour of the late Sir Hughie Edwards, who was loved by many and was a great Western Australian. He was a former governor of Western Australia and a decorated hero who won the Victoria Cross, the Distinguished Service Order and the Distinguished Flying Cross during World War II. So this government's commitment does cover a number of areas. The government are also looking not just to what has happened in the past but to the future needs of veterans as this population ages and their needs change. By the year 2007, two-thirds of all veterans and war widows with gold cards will be over the age of 80.While looking after these older veterans, as I have said, the government is keen to ensure the care of younger veterans and to establish appropriate policy in that regard. So the government has set up a consultative forum between Defence and prominent ex-service organisations to promote dialogue between current and former ADF personnel on defence service personnel matters. The government has also established the National Ex-Service Round Table on Aged Care to examine future initiatives to provide assistance to aged members of the veteran community and their carers in the decade ahead. In addition to that, in 1999 the government established the Defence Links Project, which was initiated to explore ways to better deliver services to the veteran and Australian Defence Force communities. For more than eight decades the repatriation system has cared for veterans and their families, and these bills continue the government's commitment to care for veterans and their families. I must say in closing that I do think, in relation to comments made by the member for Greenway, that the department is very sensitive. I frequently have a bit to do with the Western Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs and I have to say that it is very sensitive to the needs of the veteran community in Western Australia. My experience has been that the federal department is likewise sensitive and responsive to the needs of veterans in our community. I think it does an exceptionally good job in looking after our veteran community. I support the department and the minister in these changes that have come before this House, and I strongly support these measures.18:01:005791McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am pleased to speak today on the two bills that we are debating, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002. The measures in these bills come at a cost to taxpayers of $84.7 million over four years. I am sure that taxpayers will see this as being money deservedly spent and will support the measures. These bills are primarily concerned with rectifying drafting. However, they provide me with the opportunity to highlight a growing crisis in veterans affairs with the mounting pressures on the gold card. The federal electorate of Stirling has 1,559 veterans affairs pensioners living in it. This figure has dropped from 1,669 in 2000. We can assume from the drop in the number of veterans that the majority of them are World War II veterans and that their numbers are being eroded due to death. With such a large number of World War II veterans, many are now coming into the twilight of their years and are suffering deteriorating health and wellbeing. They are spending more time at their doctor and in hospitals. As well, some are receiving respite care services. In short, they need more health resources.Up until now the majority of veterans had been receiving free treatment with their gold card. This number increased after the last election, when both major parties promised the gold card to veterans over the age of 70, and the necessary legislation was passed, with bipartisan agreement, through both houses of parliament. The gold card entitles the veterans to free health care for all conditions. This includes benefits such as treatment as a private patient in a public or private hospital, choice of doctor and a range of other ancillary benefits. The increase in the number of veterans receiving the gold card has put enormous pressure on our health system. This pressure has resulted in some doctors, including doctors in my electorate of Stirling, refusing free treatment to gold card holders. What are the reasons for this? The government has promised gold card holders free treatment, yet it is not honouring this promise to our veterans. The crux of the matter is that some doctors are claiming that it is not financially viable to treat veterans at present Commonwealth medical benefits schedule—MBS—rates. The minister has made claims that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is negotiating with the Australian Medical Association, but the government had not approved a negotiating position for the department as late as last week. How can you negotiate when you do not have a negotiating position? The minister needs to make sure that this issue is dealt with as a matter of urgency. To highlight the government's inaction on this issue I will quote Dr Johnston from the department who, on 4 June 2002 in front of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, made the following statement in response to a question from Labor shadow minister, Senator Mark Bishop: We are talking with the AMA, exploring some possible approaches. The government has not yet decided what approach we should take in concluding those discussions, but we are talking with the AMA in a productive way. We will shortly be going to the government for guidance on how those discussion might be concluded. The government owes it to our veterans to finish these negotiations as quickly as possible. If more medical practitioners make good their threat to withdraw their services, then this scheme faces real prospects of failing. What will happen if this occurs? Firstly, we will see more veterans shunted to public hospitals to be treated as public patients. Secondly, we will see many veterans not being able to access the quality health care that they rightly deserve. But why are they faced with this dilemma? Many doctors claim that the schedule fee is up to 50 per cent below cost, therefore placing them at a severe financial disadvantage.What is causing this blow-out in costs? A number of factors are directly responsible for this cost blow-out. The first of these is the fact that, when the original rates were set, doctors had high levels of support in repatriation hospitals: hospitals that have been or are being privatised and sold or that have been closing. The second factor is the crisis, which is affecting doctors throughout the country, in medical indemnity insurance premiums. This has been well documented in the media and has not yet been fully resolved. The government's policy in forcing more people to take up private health insurance has seen participation levels soar. This has meant that doctors have faced a greater demand for their services from patients who are treated at much higher fees. What this does is place the doctor in a position where they have to make an economic decision—an economic decision which is seeing greater numbers of veterans being left out in the cold. What can the government do in the short term to ensure that this economic decision made by doctors is not hurting our veterans' community? I will examine some of the options proposed by Labor's veterans' affairs spokesman, Senator Mark Bishop, in a recent media release.The first thing the government can do is instruct the Department of Health and Ageing to reissue Medicare cards to veteran gold card holders. In my electorate, veterans have told me that, when they are unable to access health care with their gold card, they have applied for a Medicare card so they can access treatment. Why would veterans want to get hold of a Medicare card? Increasing numbers of doctors and specialists are refusing to accept the gold card as it reimburses at the schedule rate only and no copayment can be charged. The Medicare card at least allows copayments. If a veteran faced with this situation is able to afford private health insurance, they are immediately penalised by this government. Under the policies introduced by this government, people over the age of 30 who take up private health insurance are charged a premium. This scheme was effective in increasing participation rates as people were forced into private health insurance, but it penalises veterans who expected free medical treatment from the department.Another response that was suggested by Labor shadow minister Senator Mark Bishop would see the government making an interim agreement with the AMA, effective immediately, to increase the scheduled fees, subject to final negotiations, as a sign of goodwill to the medical profession. Why the government cannot do this in the interim is beyond me. It amazes me that the opposition has to provide the government with ideas on how to minimise the damage done by its inaction. The minister is a kind and caring person and she must be embarrassed by the policies her cabinet ministers have adopted. The minister, though, does have carriage of the portfolio and the policies. The minister has clearly failed the veterans' community. Maybe the minister should spend more time looking after the welfare of veterans than parading around the country giving the same speech, time after time, at veterans' functions. News travels fast in the veterans' community. You only have to look on the web to see how well this group is organised and how quickly it disseminates information to its members and the broader community.There are over 285,000 veterans with gold cards. This is a huge number of people who could be affected by this government's inaction. Earlier in this speech, I outlined the benefits of the gold card. One of the fundamental benefits is being able to have your doctor of choice. Senator Bishop, in response to his letter to doctors, has received a large number of representations from doctors who advise that it is no longer viable for them to continue to treat veterans at CMBS rates. Senator Bishop, in his press release dated 27 June 2002, stated:If the rates do not change—doctors have advised him—that they will not treat veterans unless they pay for the services.Veterans who have a gold card should be able to go to their own GP without having to pay. They should not be deprived of treatment by the GP that they know and trust. The government's inaction is putting their free treatment and their choice of doctor in jeopardy. In the bills we are debating tonight a measure has been included to index the pensions of war widows income support supplement, the ISS. I support this measure. The Labor Party supports this measure. The measure effectively removes the freezing of the ISS benefit, which over time has decreased in real terms. This proposal to index the ISS by increasing it by a proportion of the increase to the age pension—CPI or to a minimum of 25 per cent of MTAWE—essentially reverses the previous policy to limit war widows' access to income support benefits. It acknowledges, and rightly so, that war widows are entitled to more generous treatment than their age pension peers. The bill we are examining also backdates the ISS to coincide with the payment of war widows' pensions and introduces means testing of the ISS. Labor shadow minister Senator Bishop has identified a serious policy consequence of the proposed change to a pre-existing policy to limit access to income support. There are a small number of war widows and widowers under 57, with no children, who are specifically excluded from access to ISS or any other benefit, including Newstart and the disability support pension. In this scenario, a war widow or widower may be left with nothing but the war widow's pension. Senator Bishop has identified that there are over 1,600 people in this category.Senator Bishop asked a question on notice in the other place in which he sought the exact number of people who are affected. In response, the department's records show that there are 1,607 war widows and two war widowers under the age of 57, without children, included in their pension assessment. The inequality in this situation, which is exacerbated by this bill, means that these people, should they wish to re-enter the work force, will be discriminated against by not being able to access Newstart and any training program to assist them to find work. This is entirely unacceptable. It would only cost the government approximately half a million dollars per annum to address this issue. This figure is peanuts compared with the money spent on advertising by this government. The electorate of Stirling has a large number of dependants of deceased veterans. These dependants include war widows and orphans. This year, 671 dependants in my electorate had a gold card. This figure shows us just how many people the provision of this bill will affect. I suspect that there will be a number of people affected by this anomaly in my electorate. In an effort to provide practical assistance to the veterans' community in Stirling, I have advertised in my electorate newsletter, Jann's Journal, that help is available through my office on Mondays between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. I have been lucky to have been approached by Mr Greg Young, the pensions officer at the local Osborne Park RSL subbranch, who is willing to assist my office and me with inquiries from veterans and war widows and their families. Mr Young is donating his time to assist veterans in the local area. I hope that more veterans in the electorate of Stirling make use of this valuable service in my electorate office. Speaking of the Osborne Park RSL subbranch, I was lucky enough to be invited there in July to present the first recipients of the national service medal with their medals. It was a moving ceremony where the subbranch honoured five of its members. I would like to thank Bill Sullivan and the committee of the subbranch for making this event possible. Ceremonies such as this provide the community with an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of people who willingly responded to the call up for national service. Many of these people went on to serve their country, often in times of conflict, and are the veterans honoured by us all.My office has processed hundreds of national service medal applications. I applaud the award, however I must criticise the long processing times associated with the medal. I am constantly being rung by people who sent their applications to the department months ago and have still not received their medals. In some cases, the wait has been over six months. I hope that the government takes notice of this and provides some assistance for the staff in the medals directorate of the defence department, who are doing a sterling job in trying to deal with the tens of thousands of applications. The government should at least alert veterans that they will be waiting quite a long period of time for their medals. I know many of the veterans in the RSL subbranches in my electorate had been hoping to march in the 2002 Anzac Day ceremonies with their national service medals. Unfortunately, none of them received their medal in time.I will be holding a series of ceremonies at local RSL sub-branches in my electorate over the second half of this year. Hopefully the bottleneck in processing the medals will be overcome so that more veterans can receive the recognition that they richly deserve. I plan to hold ceremonies at the North Beach, Scarborough, Osborne Park and Nollamara/North Perth RSL sub-branches in the near future. These sub-branches provide not only a social gathering place for veterans but also support in accessing government benefits and support services. The efforts of all the sub-branch committees need to be recognised more often. To the committees, I salute your efforts and offer you my ongoing support.What I have done tonight is highlight some of the challenges facing the veteran community. It is essential that the government move quickly to avert a disaster in the area of the gold card. Action needs to be taken immediately to overcome the impasse that is starting to form. The provisions of this bill that deal with income support for war widows also need attention. The points I made earlier in my speech about the inability of these 1,607 people to access the services and benefits that are available to the rest of the population should be addressed as a matter of urgency by this government. I support the passage of this bill.18:16:005794Hartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER00AMMCowperNP10—Tonight I wish to address the parliament on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002. The bill is an important document because it addresses anomalies which have existed in the Veterans' Entitlements Act since it was introduced in 1986.Veterans form a major part of my constituency in the seat of Cowper. I appreciate the fact that the veteran community from Yamba in the north of my electorate right down to South West Rocks in the south ensure that I am aware of the issues which directly impact on them. The nation owes a debt of gratitude to our ex-service men and women and their families. Over the past 12 months the death of our oldest living ANZAC provided us all with another perspective on the role Australia has played in major wars and the impact it has had on us as nation. Those who lost their lives obviously made the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of a free world. It is impossible to put into words the courage and selflessness displayed by those who represented the Australian armed forces on battlefields all over the globe. But while the focus has rightly been on those who actually served and in many cases lost their lives on foreign shores we should never overlook the toll that it took on whose who were fortunate enough to return home. Similarly, we must acknowledge the pain and sacrifice which was endured by the families and friends of soldiers who never returned. For every lost Australian life there was a mother who lost a son, a sister who lost a brother and in many cases a child who lost a father. One can never put a price on the impact that such a loss must have had on the deceased's immediate family. In many ways they were left to pick up the pieces of their fractured lives and somehow carve out a future which held them together.However, one of the real strengths of Australia is the commitment we have to support veterans and their immediate families. In particular we have in a place a system of support for both veterans and war widows which I believe is the envy of many other developed countries. But that does not mean that we cannot finetune our system to make it fairer and more equitable for those who qualify for such entitlements. This legislation addresses anomalies which exist in the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The legislation will firstly attach increases for the ceiling rate in the income support supplement and service pension to that of increases enjoyed by those on the maximum rate single service pension. It will also backdate income support for those who were receiving social security pensions but who then transferred to a war widows pension.To understand the need for these changes we need to go back to 1986 when the then Hawke government pushed through the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Under the act a ceiling rate was applied to a number of social security pensions and service pensions payable to persons who were also receiving a war widow pension under the VEA. The ceiling rate was applied to limit the amount of pension payable to persons with dual pension entitlement. In 1986 the ceiling rate was set at $3,122.60 per annum. That ceiling rate remained unchanged for 14 years. The amount increased to $3,247.40 per annum following the four per cent increase for the introduction of the new tax system in July 2000. The income support supplement was introduced into the VEA in 1995 to replace the ceiling rate pensions payable to war widows and widowers under the Social Security Act 1991. It is a means tested pension available only to war widows and widowers.The payment of the income support supplement under the VEA meant that war widows and widowers could receive both their compensation and income support payments from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The service pension is payable at the ceiling rate to war widows and widowers who are also veterans in their own right. A service pension is payable at the annual ceiling rate of $3,247.40, and will also be indexed as part of this measure. The ceiling rate has not—I repeat: has not—been indexed since it was set in 1986, except for the four per cent increase under the new tax system. There is also a number of war widows who, immediately prior to 1 November 1986, were receiving a social security pension or a service pension at a rate equal to or more than $3,122.60 and have since that day continuously received that social security pension, income support supplement or service pension at that rate, plus the four per cent increase for the introduction of the new tax system in July 2000. These higher rates of income support supplement and service pension are not included in this measure and will not be indexed. These amendments will provide for the indexing of the ceiling rate income support supplement and service pension. The ceiling rate is currently $3,247.40 per annum. This equates to $124.90 per fortnight. The ceiling rate will be indexed by the same percentage increase that is applied to the maximum rate for the single service pension. The service pension is increased in line with the consumer price index twice a year.In 1997, the coalition government introduced legislation, the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Act 1997, that implemented an undertaking to maintain the maximum basic rate of service pension, after CPI indexation, at a minimum rate that was equal to or greater than 25 per cent of the annualised original all males total average weekly earnings figure—the MTAWE. Where a CPI increase results in an indexed maximum basic rate that is less than 25 per cent of the MTAWE, the maximum basic rate is topped up to equal 25 per cent of the MTAWE, and that is a very good measure by anyone's standard. It just shows the commitment of this government to looking after our veterans. The ceiling rate income support supplement and ceiling rate service pension will be indexed by the same proportional increase, or percentage increase, that applies to the single rate for maximum basic rate service pension.The other major change that these amendments will bring to the Veterans' Entitlements Act relates to the backdating of the income support supplement. Under the existing legislation, a person who is receiving certain social security pensions or benefits and who subsequently starts to receive a war widows or widowers pension may be disadvantaged in relation to the payment of income support. This is because a number of social security pensions and benefits are not payable to a person who is receiving a war widows or widowers pension. Instead, the person may be eligible for the income support supplement under the VEA. A claim for a war widows or widowers pension under the VEA is also a claim for the income support supplement.Income support supplement is payable only from the date of lodgment of the claim, whereas the war widows or widowers pension may be payable for up to three months before the date of lodgment of the claim. This can result in a person being eligible for income support supplement from the date of the grant of the war widows or widowers pension but the income support supplement not being payable for the period between the backdated grant of the war widows or widowers pension and the date of the lodgment of the claim for income support supplement. The social security pension or benefit is cancelled from the date of the grant of the war widows or widowers pension. For example, a widow of a veteran is receiving a social security age pension and lodges a claim for a war widows pension and income support supplement under the VEA. Six months later, the war widows pension is granted effective three months prior to the date of lodgment of the claim. The claim for income support supplement is granted but is only payable from the date of the claim. The granting of the war widows pension means that the social security age pension is cancelled from that date, but no other form of income support is payable for the three-month period between the cancellation of the social security age pension and the payability of income support supplement from the date of lodgment of the claim. A gap period of more than three months may occur if a person receiving a social security pension or benefit is automatically granted a war widows or widowers pension but does not claim the income support supplement for some time after the grant of war widows or widowers pension.RI4Prosser, Geoff, MPMr Prosser—We're fixing it, aren't we?00AMMHartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER—We are working on it. I am sure the member for Forrest shares my concern for the veteran community and no doubt has a very large number of veterans within his electorate. For example, if a person on a social security age pension is automatically granted a war widows or widowers pension from 1 June, but does not lodge a claim for income support supplement until 1 November, the eligible person can only be paid income support supplement from 1 November, even though the person was eligible for income support supplement from 1 June when they started to receive the war widows or widowers pension. A number of other scenarios can apply to create a similar situation which disadvantages a person who was receiving a social security pension or benefit that is not payable to a person who is receiving a war widows or widowers pension under the VEA.The social security pensions and benefits currently affected are—and I will list them for the reason of completeness—the age pension, the disability support pension, the wife pension—and there are quite a number of these benefits here—the carer pension, the bereavement allowance, the widow allowance, the parenting payment, the Newstart allowance, the mature age allowance, the mature age partner allowance, the sickness allowance, the special benefit, the partner allowance and the special needs pension.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—Are we paying all that? That's fantastic.00AMMHartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER—There are a great number of these benefits. These changes will enable a claim for income support supplement to be backdated for an eligible person who is previously on a social security pension or benefit that is cancelled when that person starts to receive a war widows or widowers pension under the VEA. The claim will be able to be backdated to the date of the grant of the war widows or widowers pension. This will enable the eligible person to receive the maximum amount of income support available to them. This government is very focused on doing the best that it can for our veterans.These changes to the act will come at a cost to the Australian taxpayer. Not only do we care for our veterans but we are totally responsible from a budgetary point of view. I would certainly implore the members opposite to pass our budget measures so that we can ensure that we have the funds needed to adequately address the needs of our community. Relating to the bills to which I am speaking, financial estimates reveal that the amendments we are proposing will cost the government $5.4 million in the year 2002-03, progressively rising to $37.7 million in 2005-06.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—We don't mind.00AMMHartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER—I am sure the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs would agree that this is a very substantial commitment to our veteran community. This is the very least that we can do to support our war widows and those veterans who would benefit from such improvements to the system. We must always accept that the responsibilities we have to the veterans and the immediate families of veterans must extend well beyond the years of service. I am proud of the commitment that this coalition government has made to our veterans and war widows. I am sure that, if the members across both sides of the House were fair dinkum about looking after them, they would also be commending these amendments.When I go around my electorate, I see a great many veterans who operate in their communities in a spirit of camaraderie. They have very much a focus on helping each other. I am the patron of the Coffs Harbour TPI association. Many of those veterans gather on a regular basis to meet in a social atmosphere but also to ensure that all of their number are being well looked after. They do things like ring up their fellow veterans to ensure that they are okay, and that is a very valuable service. It is only a small thing, but a war widow of quite some years, perhaps well into her eighties, if she is stuck at home and has some difficulty in getting out and about, would certainly be looking forward to receiving that phone call from another member of the veteran community, just checking to see if she is okay. If that spirit were reflected through the wider community to the same extent that it is reflected through the veterans community, we would see a great increase in social capital.It is great to see how those in our veterans community care for each other. I know a great number of veterans look forward to, for instance, the regular RSL sub-branch meeting. In Coffs Harbour, where we have our own local RSL sub-branch, not only do they hold functions, usually on a monthly basis, but if any of the veterans have difficulty with transport they arrange transport for those older veterans to get them to that meeting so they can have a bit of camaraderie with their mates. They take the trouble not only to get themselves to the meeting but also to ensure that other less fortunate veterans are able to get to that meeting. That is just another example of how the veteran community is looking after itself, not totally depending on the government. The government is certainly doing its bit to help, but the veteran community is helping itself, taking the initiative and contributing a great deal to social capital. The veteran community is in a partnership with government to ensure that our veterans are well looked after. I am delighted to commend these bills to the House. Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:005797Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10—I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 and the related bill. These bills will allow the twice-yearly indexation of the ceiling rate of the income support supplement and service pensions paid to war widows and war widowers. This government has stressed its commitment to veterans in our community, and the bills underline that promise. An electorate like Parkes has a very high number of veterans, evidenced by the sheer number of calls received for national service medal applications. It is important that we as a government understand that we must support veterans, war widows and war widowers.The government made an election commitment to index the ceiling rate of the income support supplement and service pensions paid to war widows and war widowers. The bills enable the twice-yearly indexation of the ceiling rate of the income support supplement and service pensions to also reflect movements in the cost of living and wages. This will mean that we can ensure our war widows and widowers are effectively looked after, even when the cost of living is substantially rising. The veteran community, and in particular the War Widows Guild of Australia, has lobbied strongly for the frozen ceiling rate to be abolished, and I believe we should listen and act. The group knows exactly how much support war widows and war widowers require. My electorate has, as I said, a significantly high number of veterans. The income support supplement is intended to provide financial assistance for war widows and widowers with limited means to support themselves. Those receiving the income support supplement will not need to do anything to benefit from the removal of the freeze, as their payments will be indexed automatically. Caring for our war widows remains a major priority in Veterans' Affairs, with increasing numbers of widows entering the repatriation system as the veteran population ages.These are not bills that will benefit only a small number of war widows and widowers. Around 90 per cent of income support supplement recipients now receive the ceiling rate, and some 81,000 war widows and widowers will benefit from the initiative. It has been suggested that the government should simply remove the ceiling rate in order to provide equity between all income support pensioners. The fact remains that the ceiling rate rules were introduced by the then Labor government in 1986. Between that time and 1996, subsequent Labor governments failed to address the inequality created by that decision. The coalition commitment to address the inequality created is at a cost of $84.7 million over four years.These bills will provide that equality that has for a long time been absent. The system will also become fairer and more supportive of war widows and widowers. The proposal to index the ceiling rate will prove fair when taking into account the additional benefits that are available to war widows, such as access to gold card repatriation treatment benefits and the continued tax-free and non-means tested status of the war widows or widowers pension. The initiative aims to provide equality for all war widows and widowers. It aims to provide peace of mind for, and economic support to, the war widows and widowers. As the ceiling rate increases over time, the group will benefit from the indexation as the rate rises.The income support supplement and service pensions paid to these people were frozen in 1986, and the ceiling rate is now over $3,000. The ceiling rate will be increased in line with increases in service pensions. One of the benefits of the bills is that they will enable the payment of the income support supplement to be backdated for eligible recipients who previously were receiving a social security pension or benefit. What this means is that, at the end of the day, these war widows or widowers will not be disadvantaged by their transition into the repatriation system. Since coming to office, this government has made it a priority to address any anomalies in that system.It is vital that, as a parliament, we honour those who have served in the defence of this nation. As a government, we have made a firm commitment to our war widows and war widowers. Bipartisan support of these bills should be a mere formality. The passage of this legislation would be just one more step forward in meeting the needs of the veteran community and particularly of those Australians whose partners have died as a result of their service. It is essential that the government and the opposition continue to support the war widows and widowers in our community, not just in our own electorates but also in the country as a whole. Veteran support is one issue that the parliament have to be bipartisan on.War widows and war widowers have to be confident that their support payments will be sufficient, even when the cost of living is raised. They must have peace of mind and financial security where it is possible and where the government and the people of Australia—whom they supported in their hour of need—can provide it. With many war widows and widowers in my electorate, I know that these bills are needed and that they must be supported by the House.20:06:005799King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—I welcome the opportunity to speak again on legislation that further demonstrates the government's commitment to veterans and war widows. I particularly commend the government on the implementation of measures in the budget since the last election, and I commend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on her hard work in this regard. Before I attend to the details of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 and the related bill, I wish to say something about the RSL contribution in New South Wales, and in the eastern suburbs of Sydney in particular. I firstly wish to congratulate Mr Keith Hall, the newly elected president of the RSL in New South Wales, on his election at the end of May. This is the first opportunity that I have had to do that publicly. He is making a very strong contribution already to that important movement in our state. I had the pleasure of meeting Keith Hall last Friday night, at the annual general meeting of the Bondi Junction-Waverley RSL sub-branch in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. I am reliably informed that he has worked very hard since assuming office and that, just last weekend, at the state council he presided efficiently and courteously over the moving of some 86 resolutions through the council. He is to be commended. He took over from Mr Rusty Priest, who made a tremendous contribution to the RSL in New South Wales. In light of what we have seen already, Keith Hall will make a similar, if not enhanced, contribution.I also want to briefly say something about the work and the contribution of the RSL sub-branches and clubs in my area. The eastern metropolitan district association of the RSL contains some 18 clubs, two of which are island clubs—one on Lord Howe Island and the other on Norfolk Island—with in excess of 5,000 members, and they are presided over by a committee headed by Mr Bill Harrigan. That committee works terribly hard to ensure the services provided by the RSL movement, in coordination with the government and other public authorities, are to the broad community across the east. I am very proud to be part of that community as a serving officer in the Australian Reserve and to participate in its activities from time to time. Just the other day I had the pleasure of being involved in a medal ceremony—and I know the Minister for Veterans' Affairs often adorns those not just in New South Wales but around the country—handing out medals for the National Servicemen's Association. The Reverend Douglas Parker of the Uniting Church in Vaucluse heads the organisation in the eastern suburbs and must be commended for doing a tremendous job.With those comments, I now turn to the substance of the legislation before the House—legislation which demonstrates the government's warm commitment to veterans and war widows. It implements the coalition's election commitment to improve benefits provided to war widows generally. Australia has recognised the importance of compensating war widows since the passage of the first War Pensions Act in 1914. As a society, it is important that we recognise not only those who make the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country but also their wives, husbands and partners, who are bereaved as a result of the courage of those men and women who defend our shores.The first of these two bills will end the unfair treatment of war widows and widowers that was a legacy of the last Labor government. War widows are currently entitled to receive the war widows pension, which is appropriately exempt from asset or income testing, as compensation for the loss of their partners. In addition, since 1995, most war widows have been entitled to receive an income support supplement of up to $124.90 per fortnight, depending on need—that is, subject to asset and income testing. That income support supplement and the arrangements that preceded its introduction in 1995 have been effectively frozen since 1986, with the exception of a one-off increase that was a result of the introduction of this government's new tax system. The freeze on the income support supplement did not reflect the practice of the federal government to index other income support measures. At the last federal election, the coalition announced its intention to introduce indexation of the supplement. That election commitment, which is implemented in full in this bill, will benefit 81,000 war widows and widowers across our nation. I know that the bill will be welcomed by the 640 war widows and widowers who live in my electorate.These reforms reflect the government's broader commitment to ensure that the services of our veterans are properly recognised through services, financial support and the commemoration of their service during times of peace and conflict. The extension of the eligibility for the gold card, another election commitment fulfilled in this year's budget, is another example of the practical support the Howard government has been giving to our veteran community. In this context, many members of parliament will be aware of concerns within the medical profession about the adequacy of fees paid to doctors and specialists through the gold card scheme. I am pleased to have been informed that the government has been working closely with the AMA to ensure that services continue to be provided to gold card holders. I congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for her work in this area. I am sure that our medical profession will continue to be able to provide a high level of service to those who have given so much to our community.I have been concerned about the Labor Party's disgraceful attempts to cause concern among veterans by claiming that hundreds of doctors are abandoning the gold card scheme. Those claims are false and deliberately designed to cause concern. It is my sincere hope that the Labor Party treats veterans with respect and understanding by recognising the consequences of trying to score cheap political points on an issue like this. Support for our veterans should be a matter of bipartisan pride and not a cause for division. Many members had the opportunity last week to attend the launch of Saluting their Service by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in this place. I was one of them. I take the opportunity to congratulate the minister on that fine initiative, and I commend this bill to the House.20:13:005800Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—in reply—I have been following debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 with great interest. I would like to compliment the various speakers on their level of interest and obvious dedication to our veterans. I must, however, respectfully correct some of the members' comments. The member for Cowan tried to justify the freezing of the war widows social security benefits in 1986 as a necessary `adjustment'—I think that was the term. The fact remains that it was applied by a very mean-spirited Hawke Labor government and caused a distinct disadvantage to our war widows, a very special group within our community which deserves greater respect and recognition. I am delighted to be part of this government, which has acted to remove this unfair and iniquitous imposition on our war widows. I do, however, recognise and appreciate that both sides of the House support this welcome measure. I also note with concern the member's statement that some of his constituents approached him and raised an issue about their inability to gain admission to Hollywood Private Hospital in Western Australia. I have been reliably informed that, although this is not a regular occurrence, most hospitals at times will be unable to accept admissions due to a limit on their holding capacity. I am not aware that Hollywood Private Hospital pushes veterans into other areas of the public health system when that situation occurs, as quoted by the member. I would be grateful for further details from the member for Cowan of any such occasions, and names and dates would also be helpful for the investigation of such a complaint. It should be noted that veterans holding gold cards can gain admission to public hospitals as private patients. I will certainly look into this allegation as a matter of priority as soon as I receive the relevant information.I also note that the member for Shortland raised the issue of doctors in her electorate not accepting bulk-billing for veterans. She says that four out of 25 doctors she canvassed claimed not to bulk-bill pensioners, but it was not clear from her speech whether they would refuse to treat veteran gold card holders. I would also like to assure the House that this government is committed to providing the very best health care for our veterans and, should any of them encounter such a situation of doctors not accepting their gold cards, they should contact my department immediately. However, I am at a loss to understand the point that the member for Shortland was making with regard to the submission by the Partners of Veterans Association and their concerns about the war widows pension. I note that this submission was forwarded to the Clarke review, however, and I am therefore confident that the issues raised will receive the attention that they deserve.I also would like to take the time to explain to the member for Stirling that the issue of the anniversary medal for national servicemen is not a matter for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. In addition, unless a person has been on active service, they cannot be referred to as a veteran. The National Service Medal is not a matter pertaining to this portfolio or the bill currently before the House. I suggest that the member has been ill informed on this issue. However, as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, I can inform the member that there was no date specified for the delivery of the commemorative medal. As a matter of fact, applicants were informed at the time that their applications would be processed on a first come first served basis. There are over 300,000 eligible national servicemen and, to date, 1,500 medals per week are being dispatched by the honours and awards unit. This is a significant effort from that department, well above the rate of estimated delivery as advised to the government earlier this year. Each application must be thoroughly checked for the validity of its details, an onerous and time-consuming task. Instead of ill-informed criticism, the honours and awards unit deserve our praise for their splendid commitment to ensure the recognition of our nashos.Turning to the bills before us, for more than eight decades our Australian repatriation system has cared for veterans and their families. Our repatriation system provides a comprehensive range of benefits to compensate veterans and their dependants for injury, disability or death resulting from their wartime service. A key component of these compensation benefits has been income support, recognising that the impact of wartime service can have far-reaching effects upon the ability of veterans to support themselves and their families. More than 380,000 members of the veteran community receive some form of income support payment through my department and we are committed to ensuring that this group of Australians benefits from a sound and equitable income support system. The majority of the amendments made by these bills will further improve the delivery of income support payments through the repatriation system. The remaining amendments made by the bills reflect minor policy changes which will improve the delivery of services. The bills will also include amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act, which reflect legislative changes to the social security system, ensuring that both systems continue to operate consistently and fairly.The key measure of the budget bill implements the government's 2001 election commitment to remove the freeze on the ceiling rate of the income support supplement for war widows. The income support supplement provides financial assistance for war widows and widowers with limited means of financial support. The income support supplement has been paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs since 1995. Prior to 1995, war widows and widowers had received income support through the social security system, in addition to receiving their war widows or war widowers pension from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The changes made at that time ensured that they could receive both their war widows pension and income support payment from my department. The ceiling rate of income support payable to war widows was frozen in 1986 by a mean Hawke Labor government. The only increase in the rate since that time was the four per cent increase from 1 July 2000 made to all income support payments as part of the government's package for pensioners in the transition to the new tax system. The budget bill provides for removal of the freeze that has been imposed on the ceiling rate of income support supplement. The amendments made by the bill will provide for the twice yearly indexation of the rate of income support. The bill also provides for the same indexation arrangements to be applied to the frozen ceiling rate as are applied to the rate of service pension. As with the early implementation of the measure to restore pensions to war widows who remarried before 1984, this measure will end a longstanding iniquity in war widows benefits imposed by the Labor government. The other amendments made by the budget bill include measures to remove an anomaly in the payment of the income support supplement to new war widows and widowers who were previously receiving social security benefits. The anomaly arises because the payment of the war widows or war widowers pension may be backdated for up to three months before the date of the claim was made. For those war widows and widowers who are eligible for the income support supplement, that payment is only payable from the date that the claim is lodged. The backdating of the war widows or war widowers pension has disadvantaged war widows and widowers because they lost their eligibility for social security benefits for the period during which they were eligible to receive the backdated war widows or war widowers pension.The amendments made by the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 will provide for the backdating of the payment of income support supplement to the date that the war widows or war widowers pension becomes payable. The amendments will ensure that widows and war widowers who were previously receiving social security benefits will not be disadvantaged by their transition to the repatriation system. Further amendments made by the budget bill will correct an anomaly in the family situation rules. These are applicable to an income support supplement recipient whose partner is not receiving a pension or other benefit from either Centrelink or the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The other bill, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, comprises mainly minor technical and consequential amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The bill also includes some minor changes in policy that will remove anomalies, extend benefits and provide for an improvement in the delivery of services.The bill includes amendments to remove an anomaly in the treatment of compensation received by war widow or widower pensioners who receive pensions under either of the two different parts of the Veterans' Entitlements Act that provide for the payment of the pensions. The amendments ensure that the compensation payments received by war widows and widower pensioners, receiving a pension under either of the different parts, will be treated the same for the purposes of the compensation recovery provisions. The bill also includes beneficial measures, with amendments which extend the eligibility for the education entry payment to invalidity service pensioners, while other amendments will provide for the eligibility for rent assistance to some persons paying rent for living in public housing for which another person is paying rent.Other amendments made by the bill will clarify existing provisions in the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The bill includes amendments to ensure the child related payments still being included in the pensions received by a small number of service pensioners will not be subject to the compensation recovery provisions. Other amendments will clarify the period during which the pensions of special or intermediate rate disability pensioners are reduced for participants who have successfully undertaken a vocational rehabilitation program. The bill also includes amendments that will provide for the better management of activities within the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. The bill includes amendments that will clarify the powers of the secretary and the Repatriation Commission to delegate their powers under subordinate legislation and amendments to provide for the appointment of persons to act as a member of the Veterans Review Board during a vacancy of that office.The bill also includes consequential amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 arising from the introduction of the income support supplement in 1995. The amendments will remove the remaining anomalies in those acts that were caused by the absence of a reference to the income support supplement. Some of those adversely affected by the anomalies included the surviving partners of war widows and widowers, who were ineligible for a bereavement payment under the Social Security Act. During its six years in office, this government has had a demonstrated commitment to veterans and their families to improve the repatriation system to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of those who have served our country in times of war and conflict. These bills reflect that commitment, which is clearly represented in the further improvements to the repatriation system that are contained in these bills. The measures contained in these bills will ensure that the veteran community will continue to enjoy a high standard of compensation and care through access to appropriate benefits and quality health care. I commend the bill to the House.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.5803Mrs VALE (Hughes—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) (8.26 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills5803R15215803Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Mrs Vale:That this bill be now read a second time.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.5803Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:27:005803Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) to (13):(1) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 24), omit “19 to 22”, substitute “items 19, 21 and 22”.(2) Clause 2, page 6 (table item 46), omit “items 54 and 55”, substitute “item 54”.(3) Clause 2, page 6 (table item 48), omit “items 57, 58 and 59”, substitute “item 57”.(4) Clause 2, page 7 (table item 52), omit “items 63, 64, 65, 66”, substitute “items 64 and 65”.(5) Clause 2, page 7 (table item 54), omit the table item.(6) Schedule 4, item 1, page 23 (lines 15 to 21), omit paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), substitute: (a) the rent paid by the other person is at or above a rate that the authority receiving the rent has told the Department is the market rate; or (b) the person shares the premises with that other person and the person's income has been taken into account in calculating the amount of Government rent payable in respect of those premises.(7) Schedule 6, item 20, page 27 (lines 13 to 23), omit the item.(8) Schedule 6, item 55, page 31 (line 25) to page 32 (line 6), omit the item.(9) Schedule 6, items 58 and 59, page 32 (line 11) to page 33 (line 3), omit the items.(10) Schedule 6, item 63, page 33 (lines 12 to 23), omit the item.(11) Schedule 6, item 66, page 33 (line 28) to page 34 (line 10), omit the item.(12) Schedule 6, item 68, page 34 (lines 14 to 25), omit the item.(13) Schedule 6, item 85, page 36 (lines 7 to 12), omit the item, substitute:85 After subclause 10(2) of Schedule 5Insert: (2A) For the purposes of Part IIIC, the rate of invalidity service pension, partner service pension, or income support supplement, that is payable to a person who has not reached pension age does not include the notional pension/supplement child-related amount.These amendments to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 will clarify the amendments that implement two of the measures included in the bill and remove the amendments associated with another measure in the bill. The amendments will clarify the circumstances in which rent assistance will be payable to a person paying rent for living in public housing for which another person is paying rent. The amendments will also clarify the position of a small number of pensioners receiving a service pension or income support supplement that includes a child related payment and will ensure that those payments will not be subject to the compensation recovery provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The remaining amendments are to remove the provisions in the bill associated with a measure that concerned the incorporation of non-legislative documents in certain instruments that are made under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The measure will not be implemented and the proposed amendments will not be needed.Question agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.5804Mrs VALE (Hughes—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) (8.29 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills5804R16105804Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That this bill be now read a second time.20:30:005804Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—This bill seeks to amend the Trade Practices Act to permit a contractual exclusion from the implied warranty in section 74 of the act by providers of certain risky recreational services. Section 74 implies, into every contract for a service, a warranty that the service will be rendered with due care and skill and that any material supplied in connection with those services will be reasonably fit. This bill aims to ensure `that individuals are able to waive their right to sue when undertaking risky recreational activities'. These are the words the government used in its press release when it announced its plan to introduce this bill.Labor supports the principle that people should be able to assume the risk when they choose to engage in risky recreational activities. This will enable businesses providing these types of recreational activities to rely on exclusion clauses or waivers. The inability to rely on these waivers is believed to have been a significant factor behind the sharp rise in insurance premiums for these types of businesses. I note that the legislation has been welcomed by operators of businesses such as adventure tourism and horse-riding schools, many of whom were facing huge increases in public liability insurance premiums. Insurance premiums should decline in response to this legislation. I trust that the government has obtained a commitment from industry that premiums will indeed fall should this change go through. While Labor supports the principle behind this bill, it would be remiss of me not to condemn the government's slow response to this issue and to the broader crisis that has enveloped the insurance industry over the last 12 months. This lack of action has caused great uncertainty for businesses and consumers across Australia. It has caused particular difficulty for some small businesses for whom the dramatic rise in insurance premiums has or could have meant an end to their business.The government's slow response has also directly contributed to deficiencies in the legislation. Having done nothing for a year, the government hurried out a press release before the end of the financial year to announce its solution. However, the solution as proposed in the press release has not translated into the legislation. The government often uses press releases to convey the impression that it is addressing issues and then fails to do the hard yards and actually implement what it has promised. We were reminded only this week of the government's commitment to claw back excessive bonuses paid to undeserving executives. Over a year later, we are still waiting for legislation.In the area of terrorism insurance, the government announced in May that it had decided to offer remainder insurance for losses above the level of cover available from individual insurers. Three months later, and almost a year on from the events of September 11 which triggered the general withdrawal of private terrorism insurance, the government has still not announced or implemented any actual arrangements.In the current instance we can be grateful that the government has at least brought on the legislation. However, the legislation is deficient in three key areas. First, when the government announced the legislation, it indicated that it will still allow injured consumers to sue if the injury is the result of gross negligence on the part of the operators. Operators of adventure tourism and sports businesses must still take reasonable precautions to run a safe and responsible business. Once again, Labor agrees entirely. Businesses must be held to account for acts involving gross negligence which result in injury to their customers. However, greater certainty as to the operation of the exclusion is required. In particular, liability for gross negligence appears to be excluded by this bill. Nor is it clear what is meant by `gross negligence'. I appreciate that a review of the law of negligence is currently under way, and that review will examine the interaction between the Trade Practices Act and common law in respect of waivers and the voluntary assumption of risk by consumers. I understand that a panel of experts has been appointed and is due to report on this question by 30 August this year. Hopefully the panel will report on this bill and, in particular, recommend how to make the operation of an exclusion clause clear and certain. Businesses need that certainty—and it is currently lacking in this bill.The second key area where the legislation is flawed—and we share the concerns of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association on this area—is that the definition of `recreational services' lacks clarity. The definition needs to be amended to make clear precisely what activities are covered by the bill. Once again, businesses need certainty so that they will know whether the service they provide is covered by this bill. Without that certainty, obtaining insurance will continue to be difficult. The third area is that the ACCC has argued, in our view correctly, that provision needs to be made to ensure that consumers are not misled or deceived. If consumers are to assume the risk associated with engaging in particular recreational activities, they must be properly informed of that risk prior to accepting it. This is also needed—as the minister should know from her days as a lawyer—so that business operators and consumers will not find their agreement ruled void by a court for a failure to disclose.Labor supports the principle underpinning the bill, and that is that people should be able to assume the risk when they choose to engage in risky recreational activities. Labor is prepared to support this legislation in the House but wants to see amendments addressing the concerns I have raised. These are necessary to ensure that those who engage in high-risk activities and who agree to waive their rights are aware that any adverse consequences will not be alleviated financially unless there has been gross negligence. The purpose of the bill—to reduce premiums—must also be ensured. Labor wants to see a solution to spiralling insurance premiums and wants to make sure that the partial solution provided by this bill can be given immediate effect.20:36:005806Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—I rise to speak on the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002. For a number of years now, small businesses and tourism operators have been facing rising public liability insurance premiums. Particularly since September 11 last year, we have all heard horror stories about the massive problems businesses face, including rising premiums and, in some cases, finding an insurer who will cover them.We have also seen the effect that the collapse of an insurance company can have on our communities. Insurance has become a vital part of everyday activities. From car insurance to home insurance, we have come to rely on insurance to cover ourselves in times of need. In recent years, the incidence of litigation has grown enormously, and so have premiums. In March this year, the Prime Minister answered a question on public liability insurance that resonated with many members of parliament. He said:I think we have to get a sense of perspective back into our lives. The idea that there should be an expectation of unlimited public accident coverage for a charitable event, against the possibility that somebody may be injured at that event, has brought a sense of unreality into our daily lives which I find quite appalling. I think one of the difficulties is that, because of the growth of this litigious mentality in our society, people's expectations have been ratcheted up, and we are all victims of it. I do not think there is one simple solution to this issue and there is not one simple level of government that can tackle the problem. I think we all have to work together. We have to scale our expectations down. We cannot simultaneously be a society that pursues individual rights and personal liberties to demented lengths but in the next breath expects to be able to conduct time-honoured charitable and volunteer activities without let or hindrance or any danger or threat of litigation. We cannot have it both ways, and society has got to decide where the balance is struck. Until it does that it is going to continue to grapple with this problem. They are great words from a great leader. Indeed, our society has embraced the United States type litigation spree, which is unprecedented. A tourist from the United Kingdom recently told a tourist operator in my electorate how litigation in the United Kingdom had reached the stage where solicitors were making random phone calls to homes at around six o'clock each night, inquiring as to whether they had had an accident recently and kindly offering their services in court.I do not know whether there are areas in Australia that have experienced this sort of badgering, but I fear our litigious society and hungry solicitors will head down that path. If we are going to tackle this problem, we must have all levels of government working together. Core responsibility for changes to tort law lies with the states and territories, but we must all take responsibility for this problem and work towards a satisfactory and long-term solution. This government has provided real leadership on this issue and has taken positive steps to help our communities. One of those positive steps has been to introduce the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002, which will allow individuals to waive their contractual right to sue when they undertake risky recreational activities. The bill aims to strike a balance between protecting consumers and allowing consumers to take responsibility for their own actions.In my electorate of Paterson, this legislation is of particular importance because of the number of tourism operators in my area. Tourism is one of the most important industries to Port Stephens, providing millions of dollars each year for local businesses as well as food on the table for thousands of families. Given the high tourist interest in the area, Port Stephens is home to many recreational activities that have been severely affected by the rising premium problem. I recently met with representatives of the Stockton Bight Dune Operators Association, an organisation with 15 members. These members have a wide range of businesses, including horse riding, beach fishing tours, adventure tours, four-wheel drive tag-along and driver training, four-wheel drive tours and sandboarding. Each business has been affected to varying degrees by the insurance problem. These operators employ around 50 people and have a turnover of around $3½ million per annum. The problems the association faces include rising premiums and finding insurance for each operator every year, which leads them to question whether or not their businesses will be viable if the trend continues.Each one of the activities can claim to be an active adventure in some way or another. It is this category of tourism that has been the hardest hit by the insurance problem. Many insurance underwriters have withdrawn from the marketplace, making it virtually impossible for some operators to find an insurer. Some operators have experienced increases of up to 600 per cent over the last four years. Graham Sansom, who is president of the association and also the operator of Horizon Safaris, has seen an eightfold increase in insurance premiums over the last seven years. His insurance went from around $350 a year to $2,750 this year. He also has one of the longest running adventure businesses in the area, with 12 years of operation on the dunes. Graham has had more than 250,000 passengers on his tours.Like other members of the association, Horizon Safaris has instituted standard operating procedures in the wake of the insurance problem. The aim is to make sure that all operators have risk management systems in place so that operators and tourists alike are protected. Sand Safaris Active Adventure Tours is another example of a local business struggling with the public liability insurance problem. This business provides quad bike adventure tours through the Stockton Bight dunes and is one of the most recognised adventure tourism businesses in the area. Sand Safaris was a finalist in the New South Wales tourism awards, in the tourism development projects category, in the year 2000. This means it was up against the Olympics. It also won the adventure tourism category in the Hunter tourism awards. The business employs 14 people and is an excellent example of the surging popularity of adventure tourism surrounding the Stockton sand dunes.The business started 3½ years ago, with an insurance premium of $2,500 per annum. This year it is expecting a minimum premium of around $40,000 in December. That is an increase of 1,600 per cent in premiums. How can any business sustain this level of activity? The business has had a waiver system since it started, where participants filled in a form before they started the tour. I do not know whether it shows the levels of stupidity and insensitivity to the issue out there, but some participants have even laughed at the operators when they have been asked to sign waiver forms. They have laughed and said, `This doesn't mean anything.' Operators find themselves in an incredible situation when they try to do the right thing. They make their adventure tours as safe as possible and talk through the risks with participants, yet some people laugh in the face of the operators, who are struggling to survive.Another local business, Oakvale Farm, employs six people and is also facing massive premium increases. It is a wildlife park that offers all the delights of baby animal feeding and interaction with animals big and small. The park was hit with a massive bill recently for their Shetland pony rides. You would not think a Shetland pony ride could cause much trouble. Kids from many generations have been riding on the backs of ponies, and the ponies themselves are not known for their speed down the straight. The operators of Oakvale Farm saw their insurance premiums rise from $7,500 to $14,000 in one year. They were also informed that, if they wanted to continue Shetland pony rides, they would have to pay $22,000 in premiums for the privilege. Oakvale Farm is a business that has been operating for 23 years, and during that time it has not had one successful claim against it. The insurance problem means that businesses like this are afraid to expand and they are also difficult to sell. Regardless of how safe an environment tourist operators can provide, they are always mindful of the fact that we are in a litigious world now where people are not taking responsibility for their own actions and courts are awarding large payouts. The simple fact is that if you participate in an adventure sport you must take responsibility for what you are doing. There is no question that businesses have to provide a high standard of care. All of the businesses that I have mentioned have extremely high levels of self-regulation and make sure that any participants are fully aware of the risks involved. If insurance premiums continue to rise not only will businesses not be able to find insurers but they will not be able to afford the insurance.Businesses in Paterson and Port Stephens cannot afford for this to happen. Our local economy is too reliant on tourism to start losing businesses that provide employment opportunities in the area. Payouts on claims must be capped, and I urge the New South Wales government, which has the core responsibility for tort law, to introduce changes as soon as possible. We cannot afford for this situation to continue. Another business in my electorate, Toboggan Hill Park, has had to face enormous problems with public liability insurance. John Caldwell is the operator of the park in Salamander Bay. The park offers a range of activities on the site, including toboggan rides, indoor rock climbing and mini jeeps. The insurance problems for John Caldwell began several years ago when premiums started to double in size each year. The problem culminated when he was hit with a $250,000 premium for cover of just $10 million. That is an insurance premium of $250,000 for a small business. I do not know any small business that could afford a rise in premiums to this extent, but John Caldwell has managed to stay open and keep the business alive although he has had to scale down the operation. He has had to shut down some activities which were considered risky and, as a result, there has been a loss of jobs. John Caldwell has also introduced waivers for customers. Customers have been happy to sign the waiver and, over the last 12 months, he has not had one claim. But, like many tourism operators out there, he sees the problem as a big joke. He believes the waiver system will work but that there must also be capped payouts and that people must be encouraged to take responsibility for themselves. It is an incredible situation.Tourism operators in Port Stephens who have been operating for years are now having to wind back their operations to stay afloat. Furthermore, we are really just starting to get into the possibilities of adventure tourism in Port Stephens. For many years, dolphin watching has been the No. 1 attraction but, increasingly, domestic and overseas tourists want more and varied attractions. We have an opportunity in Port Stephens to capitalise on this new market, but the threat of rising premiums will have a tremendous impact not only on existing businesses but also on the potential for growth. I am sure there are similar stories right across this country of people facing enormous hardships in their businesses; that is why I am particularly pleased with the government for introducing this legislation.The responsibility for insurance lies mostly with the states, but this is one area where the Commonwealth can take swift action. The Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 will allow people to voluntarily waive their right to sue in a broad range of activities. At the same time, the government is committed to making sure that consumers are provided with adequate protection through the Trade Practices Act. Consumers must have information, choice and appropriate redress. To balance that, businesses will be required to have reasonable risk management plans in place for activities for which the waiver can apply. This bill will help to take the pressure off small businesses like those in the adventure tourism or recreational activities industry. I welcome the introduction of the bill in the House.I would also like to commend the leadership role this government has taken on public liability insurance. The majority of insurance laws and the law of tort are a state responsibility, as I said before. But the federal government has recognised that public liability insurance is a massive problem that needs a uniform approach right across the country. Reforms to the common law or tort law to reduce the uncertainty surrounding court awards and settlements and reforms to streamline the legal system are essential to stabilise the insurance market. On 30 May, the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, Senator Helen Coonan, chaired a meeting of state and territory ministers and the President of the Australian Local Government Association in which concrete solutions to the current public liability crisis were discussed. The meeting was very productive, with all parties willing to actively participate in developing workable solutions to this very difficult issue. I am pleased to say that there is agreement from the states and territories on a range of reforms in this area. The Commonwealth has also been working quickly in the areas where it has responsibilities. The Commonwealth government has asked the ACCC to oversee the insurance industry for the next two years to assess the effectiveness of reforms undertaken on the cost of premiums and whether cost savings are being passed on to consumers.Other Commonwealth initiatives include: protection for volunteers associated with Commonwealth agencies from being sued; assisting badly affected groups of businesses, such as volunteers and sporting organisations, to develop risk management standards and accreditation requirements; examining the costs and benefits of exempting not-for-profit organisations from common law damages claims for death or personal injury, other than for intentional torts; appointing a high-level expert panel to examine the law of negligence, including its interactions with the Trade Practices Act, and to report back within two months; requesting the Productivity Commission to carry out benchmarking studies into Australian insurance claims management practices against world standards; and compelling authorised insurers to provide comprehensive data on claims. The government has also introduced legislation to encourage the use of structured settlements to compensate accident victims. Structured settlements involve compensating seriously injured persons with regular payments over their lifetime rather than with a one-off lump sum. The Taxation Laws Amendment (Structured Settlements) Bill 2002 provides an income tax exemption for annuities and deferred lump sums paid as compensation to seriously injured persons under structured settlements. Commonwealth, state and territory ministers recognised in their discussions earlier this year that structured settlements give injured people greater security about their future income and their capacity to meet ongoing medical expenses. The Commonwealth moved quickly to implement these changes.Structured settlements are one area in which the federal government can play a role in addressing public liability problems facing the Australian community. It provides better outcomes for both claimants and insurers facing large payouts. Many people who receive large lump sums as damages for personal injury may be unable to properly manage their investment of the lump sums. This can result in the early dissipation of compensation payments, leaving an injured person unable to provide for his or her future needs. Regular periodic payments avoid these problems. Structured settlements also help to more closely align the damages awarded with a person's actual needs. There are cases of windfall payouts where courts overestimate the lump sums required and cases of shortfall payouts where lump sums proved inadequate for the long-term care of the injured person.In addition to this action from the Commonwealth, state and territory ministers have agreed to introduce legislation to remove the barriers to structured settlements as an alternative to lump sum payouts—and in some cases have already done so. The New South Wales government has introduced the Civil Liability Bill 2002 to implement stage 1 of the government's law reform program. It has also announced details of stage 2 of the government's tort law reform program to be introduced in the spring session commencing in September 2002. I urge the New South Wales government to implement these reforms as quickly as possible to assist the tourist operators in Paterson.The key features of stage 1 include: upper limits for non-economic loss—$350,000—and lost earnings; applications of a threshold of 15 per cent in respect of general damages; new interest calculations and discount rates for damages awards; limited legal costs claims in small claims; penalties for making unmeritorious claims; and the reforms to apply from 20 March 2002. Key features to be addressed in stage 2 of the reforms include: waivers and voluntary assumption of risk; establishing a realistic duty of care; protection for volunteers under good samaritan legislation; defences against negligence claims for public authorities; structured settlements; and drugs and alcohol to be taken into account in assessing negligence.I welcome these actions by the New South Wales government. But again can I put on record that all levels of government must act on this issue as quickly as possible to assist small businesses that are facing an uncertain future. Regardless of who has responsibility for what law, at the end of the day all levels of government must work together, with the community and with industry, to make sure that these reforms provide a long-term solution. There are businesses from my community—and, I am sure, in communities all over Australia—who are facing an uncertain future. They do not know what their premiums are going to be next time around, and they do not know whether their business will be sustainable if the increases continue. So I encourage all levels of government to get on with the job as efficiently, effectively and quickly as possible and to break the monkey on the backs of small businesses. I recommend the bill to the House.20:54:005810Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Paterson. Like him, I represent a rural, if not semi-rural, electorate and I have seen first hand the impact of the insurance crisis on rural and regional communities. I have to say there would be a number of city based members in this place—and I say this with respect; I do not challenge their capacity to show an interest in this issue—who would have only a limited appreciation—like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker—of that impact on rural and regional communities. But I am a little intrigued by the member for Paterson's contribution. Someone has written for him a very nice speech. He worked as a lobbyist, I understand, while he was not in this place between 1998 and 2001, and I would swear tonight he was again working as a lobbyist for the Insurance Council of Australia because he took a very strong stand on this bill, the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002. Indeed, he would have us believe that this bill is almost a panacea for all the ills in the small business and tourism sector. It is far from that. But he did show some inconsistency because, while at one stage he was putting it forward as a panacea for all our problems, he was at the same time almost criticising—as usual—state governments for not playing a substantial role in addressing the problem.The member for Paterson is very good at this line of attack. He spends most of his time back in his electorate picking up on issues like law and order, for example—very much state issues where he can ingratiate himself with the electorate but, at the same time, take none of the responsibility. The bonus, of course, is that it gives him the opportunity to criticise the Carr Labor government. My message to the member for Paterson is that the electors of Paterson, which is very close to my electorate, are waking up to his tactics. They are sick of seeing the newsletters about law and order and local road traffic issues, which are not the responsibility of the member for Paterson but, indeed, are the responsibility of state and local government. They want to hear the member for Paterson start talking about issues like health and education, or even the impact of the GST, which I understand is no longer impacting on people in our society! There seems to be a belief on that side of the House that the GST has had no impact on small businesses, for example. LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened to the diatribe from the member for Hunter and I would ask you to bring him back to the subject. The bill before the House is actually about public liability insurance under trade practices.10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—The member for Paterson will resume his seat. I am sure that the member for Hunter will come back to the bill—and quickly.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I am sure I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. But, with respect, what I am saying is very relevant to the bill in hand. We are facing a very significant economic and social issue here, which is made all the more difficult by the nature of our federation, with the dual and shared roles and responsibilities of various levels of government—and I include in that local government.As I was saying, the member for Paterson would be better served in his electorate talking about Commonwealth issues, issues for which he has some responsibility and issues where the policies of his government are impacting adversely on his constituency. He need not come in here, play the same role he is playing back in the electorate and indicate to us all that this bill before the House is a panacea for all the ills in the small business and tourism industry and yet at the same time say that, if the New South Wales government does not do something on tort law reform, it will not mean very much at all. Well, that is very true. But the other inconsistency is that one minute he says the New South Wales government is not pulling its weight and yet two minutes later he himself quotes the New South Wales Civil Liability Act, which from March 20 does restrict the opportunity for people to take action for injuries suffered to below 15 per cent of personal capacity.There were a lot of inconsistencies in what the member for Paterson had to say, just as there were inconsistencies in the member for Paterson's response to my accusations in parliament last Thursday night, when he outrightly denied knowing the federal candidate for the state seat of Maitland. Everyone in Maitland knows that the member for Paterson has been an associate of Mr Bob Geoghegan for a long time. They all know that, when Mr Geoghegan was desperate for a tenant in his building in East Maitland, the member for Paterson was there to fill the void.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—Mr Deputy Speaker Price, I raise a point of order. Deputy Speaker Hawker, who previously occupied the chair, had brought the member for Hunter back to the bill once. The member is ignoring the ruling of the chair. I have sat and listened to his diatribe. I would ask you to bring him back to the essence of the bill, which is about insurance, not about other matters.10000Price, Roger (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. L.R.S. Price)—Order! The bill before the House is the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 and I would invite the honourable member for Hunter to speak to the bill.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will return to the theme I was developing, and that is the question of jurisdiction, the impact it has on public liability and the challenges it places before governments in dealing with this very serious crisis. The member for Paterson knows all about jurisdictional questions. He sits not only in this place but also on Port Stephens Shire Council, where he presides over a range of issues, including issues like height limits in coastal developments like Nelson Bay. I make the connection again between the member for Paterson and Mr Bob Geoghegan, the state Liberal candidate in Maitland. I understand that Mr Geoghegan has development proposals—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Hunter will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Mitchell.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This debate is on the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002, which deals with insurance. The member who is at the dispatch box has not mentioned that topic once in his speech, which has now been going for the last seven minutes. It is time that he dealt with the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Mitchell. I invite the honourable member for Hunter to return to the bill.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I thank the member for Mitchell for the intervention, because I am sure Mr Bob Geoghegan does have public liability coverage. I am sure Mr Geoghegan is one of those small business people—that is how the member for Paterson described him in the Newcastle Herald I think last week—who is struggling with the enormous increases in public liability premiums. I am sure that is impacting on his decision making in terms of how much he will invest in the Port Stephens local government area and, therefore, how many applications he might have before that council over the next three or four years, or maybe only the next year or so—with the tenure of the member for Paterson. But these are related issues and that does help me continue on with my theme about the jurisdictional questions and the impact that has in terms of dealing with these very important issues. As I said, the member for Paterson would understand those jurisdictional questions very well, as he sits in both local government and the federal parliament—and, I understand, he is still a sitting member of a certain former state corporation. I am not sure in what capacity— LL6Baldwin, Robert, MP8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—It is not a corporation; it has been privatised now?LL6Baldwin, Robert, MP8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I do not know anything about it; I do not pretend to. But I know that the member for Paterson has some interest in a state-based organisation—also presiding over the building industry, perhaps—that also has an interest in these issues of public liability. I apologise to the member for Paterson if—10000Price, Roger (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. L.R.S. Price)—Order! The honourable member for Paterson.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—Mr Deputy Speaker Price, I raise a point of order. The member for Hunter handles the truth rather recklessly. He is making some very serious allegations here, which are totally unsubstantiated. He has even admitted that he does not know what he is talking about. I would ask you to bring him back to public liability insurance under the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002, which is what we are supposed to be debating. He is intent on having a spray on me. That is fine, and I can accept that. But one would think that he would be—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Paterson will resume his seat. The honourable member for Hunter will return to the bill.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I do apologise to the member for Paterson if I have misrepresented the body on which he plays a role at the New South Wales level. I admit that I do not recall what it is. I do recall though that, during his time out of this place, he did receive an appointment on a semi-government board in New South Wales and I understand still—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Honourable member for Hunter, if you cannot contribute to the bill, I am afraid I will have to sit you down. The Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 does not have anything to do with the honourable member for Paterson.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—In deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be happy to return to the bill. I began by saying that it is always a pleasure to follow the member for Paterson. Again, tonight, he has demonstrated himself to be a great supporter and a great advocate of the rights of small business, as he has demonstrated in the past with respect to the unfair dismissal bills. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that, as a former shadow Minister for Small Business, I too acknowledge the important role that small business has to play in the Australian economy and how important it is that we put in place an environment in which they are able to grow—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Hunter will resume his seat. The honourable member for Mitchell.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member has now strayed from the member for Paterson and Nelson Bay into the laws that govern labour relations and unfair dismissal, which have nothing to do with the legislation before the House. The member has had 10 minutes. That is probably good enough. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Mitchell. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Whilst I respect the views of the member who has just raised the point of order, clearly the last minute or so of the opposition spokesman's speech was about small business. This bill, if nothing else, is about small business's viability in terms of insurance. That is what the member was alluding to. You cannot stretch a point to say that he cannot talk about small business in the context of this legislation: it is clearly about small business.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hunter has assured me that, in deference to me and to assist the House, he will return to the bill. I would be most grateful if he would do that.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I absolutely will. I thank my colleague for his intervention; he is absolutely right. The member for Paterson spent 99 per cent of the time allocated to him talking about small business. What I am saying, moving now beyond the jurisdictional questions, is that the member for Paterson has consistently shown himself to be a champion of small business. I was saying that I share his view: it is important that we put in place an environment conducive to small business growth and, therefore, employment growth. The Labor Party, in particular, supports that approach. But it is about balance. With respect to unfair dismissals, it is about getting the balance right between the interests of small business and those who work within it. With respect to public liability, it is also about getting the balance right—the balance between the rights, responsibilities and obligations of small businesses, including those operating in recreational services and the tourism industry, covering bungy jumping and all those types of activities, and those who take advantage of such activities. For the next 10 minutes, I am going to stick pretty precisely to the bill.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—Seven minutes!8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Only seven, is it? I hope I am also going to show pretty precisely that I have some balance and the Labor Party has some balance. I have said in a number of places that I will not be part of legislating away the common law right of people to sue for negligence. That is a basic tenet that runs through our laws. The tort law—in other words, part of the law of negligence—has been around for a long time, and legislatures have to be very careful about legislating away that right. But I did not hear the member for Paterson mention that at all. I did not hear him express any concern whatsoever about the overwhelming majority of Australians who are consumers of some of these services and who, in some cases, will be the victims of negligence—not just gross negligence, but negligence on the part of tourism operators, recreational operators or whomever. There was no indication from the member for Paterson that he is prepared to bring any balance to this debate. He is just in here again championing the interests of one sector of the Australian community. I doubt whether the member for Paterson has any real clue about the history of tort law and the obligations we all have under it. He did make the point, of course, that effectively this is a state jurisdictional matter—and that is true. But the question is: how much difference will this legislation make, even when working in conjunction with state tort law reforms? I accept that, if we are going to have tort law reform at the state level because of section 109 of the Constitution, we need to deal with the Trade Practices Act. Of course, if we are going to do that properly, we need to deny people that second stream under which to find some remedy. But this bill is very skinny in its explanation of what some of these recreational services mean, and the member for Paterson made no reference to that whatsoever. My great fear is that, unless the government tightens up this piece of proposed legislation, we will have a whole new body of law surrounding the definitions of what is and is not a recreational service and to whom an exclusion can and cannot apply. For example, what is the government saying about those with intellectual disabilities? Will we allow them the right to waive their common law right to sue for obvious negligence? What about minors? Will we allow them to sign away their right to take action under the common law? I do not think the member for Paterson has contemplated these issues. The member for Paterson has picked up what effectively is a state issue and has thought to himself that this is another opportunity to go into the House, read a speech he has written and have a big whack at the New South Wales government once again but not give any consideration to some of the adverse implications of the legislation which has been put before us.As was said by the shadow minister for employment services and training, the member for Kingston, who led the debate tonight, we will allow the passage of this legislation through the House because we, like the member for Paterson, are only too aware of the impact that the public liability crisis is having in rural and regional areas. Just recently, I was approached by the Singleton cancer support group, which was about to hold a very important fundraiser in my electorate. The group had to cancel that event because it was unable to secure public liability indemnity for it. Thankfully, the Hunter Area Health Service—and I thank that service—was able to extend its coverage for that day only so that that very important fundraising event could go ahead. The Richmond Vale Preservation Co-operative Society in my electorate, which rehabilitates steam engines and runs tourist rides on weekends, no longer operates. Notwithstanding the fact that the society has not had a claim in something like 10 years—no, it is not facing a spiralling insurance bill—its insurance was just cancelled. That is why the society does not run that tourist event any longer. The list goes on and on. The Upper Hunter Eisteddfod is facing an increase for its public liability, for one week a year, from $600 to $1,700. So, like the member for Paterson, I appreciate fully the impact of the crisis, but I am also just as aware that this is a flawed bill.This is very much a flawed bill. It has been hurried into this place under the political pressure being generated out there in the community. It gives the Commonwealth the opportunity to wipe its hands of the thing and then say, `It's all a matter for the states.' So the member for Paterson will be able to go back to his constituency—as he does on a regular basis when talking about law and order, roads and all those other state issues, while avoiding the very important Commonwealth issues that are impacting on people—wipe his hands of it and say, `I stood up in parliament and read a speech someone wrote for me after a bit of input from the Insurance Council of Australia. Now it is not my responsibility; it is up to'—as he would say—`that nasty state Labor government.' I will be very interested to see what the member for Paterson's old landlord, Bob Geoghegan—now the state Liberal candidate in Maitland—has to say on what will be his approach to public liability issues at a state level and to what extent he is prepared to amend tort law in New South Wales to ensure greater protection for those people who are in business in his electorate. I will also be interested in what Bob Geoghegan and the member for Paterson have to say to all those people who thereafter might find themselves denied of the opportunity to take action against an operator who clearly has been grossly negligent because of what the member for Paterson has done in this place. Again, I bring some balance to the debate. We support the general principle of government acting— (Time expired)21:14:005814Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 is important legislation which deals with some of the risk factors that have been experienced by community and sporting bodies following problems in the insurance industry which have been brought about for a whole range of reasons. This legislation seeks to limit the liability that is confronted by community organisations because the cost of insurance, if they have unlimited liability, would drive them out of business.I have here a collection of press clippings relating to different organisations, some of which I know extremely well, whose representatives have made statements about the cost of increased insurance, the cost of premiums, and what it will do to their organisations. Following a meeting of the states and the Commonwealth in May this year, the federal government agreed to amend federal law so that waivers signed by consumers undertaking what it has termed `inherently risky activities' cannot be overturned unless the business acted in a grossly negligent fashion. The organisations that I am referring to are organisations that all members of parliament have day-to-day contact with. It is interesting to note that Mr Jeff Lehrer, the President of the Outdoor Recreation Industry Council of New South Wales, says that his organisation has 300 groups engaged in abseiling, rock climbing, canoeing, bushwalking and all those sorts of activities which are basically thought of by most people, I believe, as fairly passive recreation. However, there are high-risk factors in this industry. Mr Lehrer says: ... while bushwalking is still almost universally acceptable to insurers it is, in fact, the activity with the greatest percentage of injuries.He is quoted as saying:“Bushwalking is still being insured without question, yet it is one of the higher-risk activities when you compare it to other sports. This is because of the stricter way that paddling and rope activities are managed.”Mr Lehrer also says that he believes that unless changes are made the industry could close down. He is quoted as saying:“People are saying `it's not worth being involved anymore' or `I can't run an operation the way I have been, charging what I have been and expect to survive'.”Part of the problem is that 70 per cent of these activities are insured overseas. For some period no new underwriter was found, but eventually one new underwriter was found for many of these activities so now they are insured.I go on to draw the attention of the House to other organisations, in particular the Australian Horse Riding Centres of New South Wales which predicts that 60 per cent of its 30 centres will cease horse riding. The Australian Pony Club Council is also regarded, for the purposes of insurance, as being involved in a risk activity. I note here the comments of the Chief Commissioner of Guides Australia, Barbara Horsfield. She said that the organisation had always been out there to help girls and women grow into confident, self-respecting and responsible community members—and nobody would gainsay that: it is a wonderful organisation. But I know from Barbara and from other people within guiding that the Guides for a period were facing an incredibly difficult problem to cover their insurance. I notice here that state membership fees for guiding are around $56 a year and that girls are contributing up to $5 a week for materials. Adding to that a massive hike in insurance costs brought Barbara Horsfield, the Chief Commissioner of Guides Australia, to say:Guides Australia's philosophy is that the cost of membership is affordable—ensuring that all girls and young women are not denied the opportunity to experience Guiding. The increase in the cost of insurance must result in an increase in the cost of Guiding, and consequently disadvantage some members of the community. This increase to our insurance premium is an untenable situation, particularly when the history of claims for public liability from activities undertaken by Guides Australia has been minimal.That is right: it is a magnificently managed organisation. Yet the fact that insurers want to charge massive increases to insure against any accident, protecting themselves from liability, is something that most community members cannot understand. Most people cannot understand why activities generally undertaken by fairly passive community groups—whether it be a P&C association, a Country Women's Association or a progress association, and you would not think that there would be too many high-risk activities in a progress association—have led to them being lumped together.That was the situation until this legislation. This is the value of what is being done here tonight in the parliament. By agreement between the states and the Commonwealth there is a drawing together of a will to separate out high-risk activities—or those that are seen by the insurer to be high-risk activities. I think that is very important, too, because all community group activity in Australia faced terrible costs. Small organisations were unable to charge their members for insurance premiums that doubled or trebled. The businesses involved in these high-risk activities include horse riding, rock climbing and whitewater rafting. They are the ones from a business perspective that face high public liability insurance. However, not only businesses face that sort of high cost.I notice that the Prime Minister on 29 June is reported as saying that he wanted to see new legislation passed which:... would allow state governments to change their laws of negligence to allow people engaging in dangerous activities such as bungee jumping to waive their right to sue for damages.What that means basically is that, if somebody wants to undertake a risky activity and they can be assured that all precautions have been taken, they can sign off and say, `I understand the risks. I'm going to take a risk here and, if there's any accident or any problem following my activity, I'm not going to make a claim.' The extent to which this disclaimer will or will not work is quite unusual. Recently I have been involved in a community group of 200 young people on a weekend of leadership. They wanted to do some service in the community by landscaping a nursing home. It is not a very dangerous activity; it is not high-risk stuff, you would have thought. But it was impossible to gain insurance, in case there was a problem. All of those young people have written disclaimers saying: `We understand that there may be some risk factors in planting trees.' But I am told by the legal advice to that organisation that those disclaimers are not worth the paper they are written on.The law needs to change—and that is what is happening—so that smart lawyers cannot go digging back to disprove disclaimers. Even though a person may say that they understand the risk and they are not intending to sue if something goes wrong, it is possible, until this legislation is through, for them to sue anyway, no matter what the disclaimer says. This legislation is absolutely essential if we are going to get confidence back into those community groups that do physical activities at weekends—organisations such as pony clubs, Scouts, Guides, boys brigades and girls brigades. Those sorts of organisations, that are the very heart and soul of our community, need these protections. When governments became aware of the dangers of very high insurance closing organisations down, they came together. In a meeting which was attended by representatives of state and federal governments it was decided that the whole process of insurance would be examined. The ministerial meeting on public liability held in Melbourne on 30 May this year issued a communique, a statement, which covered a whole range of topics which I believe go to the crux of what has been wrong with the insurance industry. It covers the role of the ACCC; volunteers and not-for-profit organisations, which I have been discussing; law reform; the tort law reform process; and the waivers on risky activities. The Commonwealth made a commitment that it would legislate to allow self-assessment of risk for people who choose to participate in inherently risky activities, such as adventure tourism and sports, subject to preserving adequate protection for consumers under the Trade Practices Act—and that is the legislation that is being dealt with by the House tonight.That was a decision taken by the ministerial council on 30 May. The communique was issued and the Commonwealth is now acting—almost at the very first opportunity—to deal with this issue. There is to be a review of the law of negligence. Compensation is going to be examined. Who could say that some of the extraordinary claims in New South Wales—my own state—are justified, unless they have been agreed by judges who look at the bankroll of insurance companies and say that they can afford it, without counting the cost downstream and what it means to successive claims? Ministers, both state and federal, on 30 May looked at the role of structured settlements; the legal system reforms that were necessary, including the handling of claims; advertising by legal practitioners; data collection; and a benchmark study of claims to be processed.I would have thought that this industry would have far more statistics and facts on which to base decisions than it actually has. I am really surprised at the paucity of information kept by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission and now APRA, its successor. I really do feel that that needs to be jerked into gear. However can we make decisions in this area, give advice, frame legislation, support the industry and keep the confidence needed in insurance if we have not got available statistics of the types of claims, the classes of claims, how often they occur, what they are and what the decisions are? There are some statistics, but not nearly enough on which to make decisions. I know that it is being rectified, and that has been covered also by the meeting of ministers on 30 May.What does this legislation do? Having covered the ground that relates to the problem of businesses and not-for-profit organisations, the meeting of ministers was a response to growing public concern. It was recognised by everybody concerned that at common law a person may be liable to pay damages for negligence if it can be shown that they owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty was breached and injury or damage was caused as a result. That is the basis of what we are looking at here tonight. One measure that has been endorsed by New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia is to give effect to waivers or disclaimers signed by people, and this is where the Trade Practices Act comes in. Unless the Trade Practices Act is changed to release people from those responsibilities that they hold under state law then the changes that we need cannot be made. So the Trade Practices Act is being amended tonight. It is the critical first part of a change to solve the problems of insurance, a role in which the Commonwealth has a function.The basis of all this is an interesting Latin phrase which translated means `to a willing person no injury is done'. That is a very nice encapsulation of what we are dealing with here. Whether it be in the gym, bushwalking, riding horses, whitewater rafting or anything else, a willing person can have no injury done to them, because they have gone into that situation gladly and willingly. For an example of this concept, I have from the Parliamentary Library an interesting summary by Chief Justice Barwick. It is from the case of Rootes v. Shelton. The High Court considered the case of a waterskier who was injured in a collision with a stationary boat. In a neat couple of sentences which describe the process, Chief Justice Barwick said:No doubt there are risks inherent in the nature of water skiing, which because they are inherent may be regarded as accepted by those who engage in the sport. The risk of a skier running into an obstruction which, because submerged or partially submerged or for some other reason, is unlikely to be seen by the driver or observer of the towing boat, may well be regarded as inherent in the pastime. ... But neither the possibility that the driver may fail to avoid, if practicable, or, if not, to signal the presence of an observed or observable obstruction nor that the driver will tow the skier dangerously close to such an obstruction is, in my opinion, a risk inherent in the nature of the sport.Therefore, a line was drawn about what was a risk and what was not a risk in waterskiing.At common law, people can sign waivers excusing service suppliers of negligence, but courts really do examine these closely. The advice that I received on the nursing home landscaping was a scrutiny applied by lawyers which they felt courts would apply to any disclaimer written by parents of young people—or by the young people themselves—to say that they would not pursue any injury that might happen to them during this process. I am sure the House will be pleased to know that that landscaping will be done later in September, and that great care will be taken. The nursing home is covered for volunteer workers in this situation—which is a great relief to all those who are involved—and there will be no risk for the young people involved. But without that coverage, here was a great community activity, a great outpouring of youthful enthusiasm and leadership in wanting to do something for older members of the community, that was going to be stopped by the stupidity of endless claims for no reason whatsoever, other than that, because an insurance company stood behind somebody or other, there could be a payout. The fact is that greed drove many of these claims. The process of finding somebody to pay you for your lack of preparation or for your own negligence has been pursued by many. That has in part brought about the collapse of insurance companies and has caused the extremely expensive insurance claims and the extremely costly premiums that people have been facing. I am delighted that the government has moved in this direction to change the Trade Practices Act. It is only a slim bill, and the outline of the bill is no more than four or five sentences, but it does cover the concepts that I have described tonight. A simple change to the Trade Practices Act relieves operators, owners and organisations from the responsibilities under state law to take due care of people who participate in activities covered by the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act. I believe this is a significant night to give assurance to Guides, Scouts, bushwalking clubs and businesses who operate in the tourism industry and who are an attractive feature of the Australian environment which many tourists like to participate in. We have a good record for safety in tourist activities in Australia and we need to maintain it. It cannot be maintained, nor can businesses be maintained, unless we have appropriate law and appropriate insurance. That is what is being done tonight. A sensible line is being drawn down the middle. Unless the organisations are absolutely stupid, they are free of responsibility. (Time expired)21:34:005818Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyIND00—I do not think that those wise jurists who decided that the person who sued the soft drink company in the case of Donoghue v. Stephenson was able to sue and to be given compensation for damages ever envisaged that the law of tort would go to the enormous lengths which it has now reached in Australian society. Many people foresaw that we would become a litigious society similar to the United States. There would be many who claim today that Australia has gone much further. A young lawyer known to me, who is working with one of the biggest law firms in Australia, was told that all claims under $25,000 would be settled out of court. That company in their wisdom have decided that, no matter how ridiculous the claim, the cost of going to court would end up being in excess of $25,000. If clients or society as a whole are aware that this situation exists, then no matter how ridiculous your claim, there is a big vested interest in pursuing it, because you will get $25,000 so long as you are prepared to go to court. That situation—which we are not addressing tonight, but which should be addressed—is one of the fires fuelling the current problems created in Australia through public liability.Whilst HIH may be a catalyst for change, there is no doubt that this problem was there long before the collapse of HIH. If you have the costs of an out of court settlement and, on top of that, the costs of litigation—that is, the costs of the lawyers and the court process—imposed upon the insurance industry of Australia and on the costs of insurance, of real insurance, of risk covering, then you have two costs on top of what the cost situation should be. The situation should be that which was envisaged long ago in the case of Donoghue v. Stephenson and which is the foundation of the law of torts in the British legal system.Beyond that is a third realm of the cost structure which builds yet another great edifice upon the real cost of the risk. We have the settlement out of court, we have the cost of the lawyers and we have the third cost, which comes from a very peculiar angle and which is, if you like, the free trade argument. It says that anyone in Australia who wants to become a lawyer should be allowed to do so. We have the situation in Queensland, which I understand exists in the rest of Australia, that each year we produce as many lawyers as currently exist in the state. Each of those people must go out and endeavour to find a market for themselves or they will starve. So you have this ambulance-chasing profession which has been forced into this situation by a massive oversupply of lawyers onto the market. We cannot help but make the point that, once again, the market forces have rather dismally failed and have had a very unsalutary effect upon the Australian people. These things are eliminated in New Zealand by a no-faults system. I am not one for racing off into a no-faults arena, but there is no doubt that that would eliminate a large proportion of those three elements. One would want to go give that some degree of forethought before moving down that pathway.In the state of Queensland, I was one of the three senior ministers in the government before its fall in 1989. I had very wide-ranging government responsibilities. The then Treasurer, Mr Bill Gunn, who was a very outstanding man in every single respect, and Sir Leo Hielscher—he was later offered a position with the Reserve Bank in Canberra, a position as Head of Treasury in Canberra and a World Bank position—who is a man of very distinguished and outstanding abilities and who had a lot to do with the magnificent state of the Queensland economy when it was handed over to the Labor Party in 1989, proposed that a cap be put upon payouts.Heaven only knows that North Queensland, of its very nature, is a very dangerous place. The first three exploration parties that went into North Queensland all vanished without trace under most tragic circumstances. There is no doubt that many large areas of danger lurk in every single recreational activity that takes place in North Queensland.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—Did Burke and Wills take out insurance?HX4Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTER—The comment is not as humorous as it may appear. On my last three river inspections in the paradise coast area, we saw 15-foot crocodiles on the banks of rivers that have been traditionally swam in for almost as long as human beings have occupied that part of Australia—some 40,000 years. That is before we go into scuba diving, ballooning, whitewater rafting, rainforest walking tracks—where three people have perished in the last seven or eight years—and things like rugby league and rodeos, which are very prevalent in North Queensland. All of these things have an element of danger attached to them, so the bill has very great relevance to the people of North Queensland.The fourth aspect of this relates to the proposition that a cap be put on payouts, which was put forward by Sir Leo Hielscher and William Gunn, the former Treasurer in Queensland. At the time, the Treasurer and the undersecretary were discussing a figure of some $600,000 and the proposition that there would be no payouts above that. That was a very controversial figure; I argued that it should be a little bit higher. I suppose it may have been in the nature of an ambit claim, as this was being discussed in government circles. We were arguing about that at the time of the fall of the government. If you pay a $4 million claim—and I do not know whether that was the figure for the surfing accident that took place—then you may have provided some assistance to that person. Undoubtedly, $4 million would be a wonderful sum of money for that person to receive. But it does not bring back the use of that person's limbs and it does not punish the council for its lackadaisical nature. It punishes every single insurance consumer in Australia. That is where the punishment falls. If there is a very clear-cut case of irresponsibility—and the medical profession is a classic example—then the punishment should not incorporate a monetary punishment. There should be some sort of onus upon that doctor to go back and have special training or to possibly lose his right to practise altogether. The punitive damages are picked up by the insurance company and not by the person. He does not get punished; all the other insurance consumers do.The fourth element is punitive damages. I am not advocating a no fault system, but I think that aspects of it have to be looked at. We need to look at a system in which there is some sort of capping of these huge payouts. It is not a very acceptable subject to discuss, but three-quarters of the people who win the lottery in the United States end up broke within two years of their win. It is quite a remarkable statistic. I have to say that, for many people I know who have won lotteries, that has happened whether they were rich or poor. For a lot of people who get these huge lottery type payouts, the money has vanished within a couple of years. Many of those people, unfortunately, do not have consciousness; some would describe them as `vegetables' in the sense that they have no brain function. The family receives the benefit of the payout, and the person that suffered does not receive a benefit at all. In some cases, of course, the family deserves that payout.We have started a wonderful tourism industry south of Cairns. Cairns's tourism industry has traditionally been north of Cairns; the Daintree, the islands and all of those places are in the north. For reasons I do not understand, the industry had never come south. The south is where by far the most spectacular rainforest is, because the mountains are much higher south of Cairns than they are north of Cairns. The crocodile numbers are probably much greater in the south. There is no Raging Thunder whitewater rafting north of Cairns; that is south of Cairns. Arguably, the best parts of the reef are south rather than north. We have had a number of pioneers in the tourism industry in the south. In a region, I think you need six really outstanding world-class attractions to be able to get people to come to the region. We have the Tabones' crocodile farm. When Mick sits on big Gregory—a crocodile that has eaten people—he generally puts on a very exciting show. For the amount of work the Tabone family has put into developing that farm, the rewards have not been great, but their investment has been great indeed. They have created something brilliant: a great tourist attraction which attracts people to the area.Paronella Park, which obviously does not have the dangers that are inherent in a crocodile farm, has gone from having about 3,000 people a year less than 10 years ago to having some 100,000-odd now—thanks to Mark Evans and his wife and the brilliant job they have done—which is an absolutely extraordinary move forward. There are similar figures at the lava tubes for the Collins family and at the caves at Chillagoe—but, again, cave climbing is a dangerous occupation. Dennis Cole, with both whitewater rafting and ballooning at Raging Thunder Adventures, is having 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 people a year there now. These people have put together a lot of these initiatives. Barry Moyle, a very active and excellent mayor of Innisfail, has started a canopy walkway there some 150 feet above the ground. Obviously, there are some dangers in walking through a canopy of trees 150 feet above the ground. The point I am making is that we have a wonderful resource that we can provide not only for Australian tourists but for tourists from all around the world. We can make great amounts of money and achieve great wealth and prosperity for Australia. But all of these activities are in jeopardy because of the situation that exists with public liability. We applaud the government for the initiatives that they are taking here tonight—they are excellent and very sensible, and I think every member on both sides of the House, as well as those of us in between, would applaud the government for this initiative—but I really think that we have to go much further than this. We have to look seriously at capping and at going down the pathway of a no fault approach to insurance, which has had, on the whole, a fairly successful period of life in New Zealand. We applaud the government and thank them very sincerely. We also thank those great fighters and pioneers who are creating a new industry for us in North Queensland and who have suffered very greatly as a result of this explosion in the cost of public liability insurance. They have had to fight for the continued existence of their businesses because of this problem. This measure tonight will provide some modicum of relief for those people. Finally, we have a little railway line from Atherton to Ravenshoe run by volunteers from RailCo. It has some of the most beautiful tourist attractions in Australia, such as the walk around the top of Koombooloomba. Some say it is the most spectacular walk in the entire world. It has a magnificent thousand-foot waterfall, mist and rainforest; it is most certainly spectacular. We have wind farms, which many people go to California to see. You can now see them in Ravenshoe, and they are truly a magnificent sight. Many tens of thousands of tourists are going there to see them now. For RailCo, there are always safety issues with respect to the railway, particularly as people work there as volunteers. Those people have fought for its existence. They have had to close the railway line on a number of occasions to try and keep up with the very high standards that are required for rail travel in the state of Queensland—and quite rightly so. All of these people will get relief and some hope for the future. We applaud and thank the government, but we also need them to go a little bit further. 21:52:005820King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—In a free and just society the voluntary assumption of risk of loss or injury by those involved in a risky activity is generally assumed to be appropriate. The measures proposed in the legislation currently before the House, the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002, do not extend that far. This bill in effect provides that, where a person voluntarily assumes the risk in relation to a recreational activity by an agreement made in advance of that activity occurring, they shall assume the risk of loss or injury notwithstanding the negligence of another—or, in this case, the breach of the Trade Practices Act in particular. A significant amount of data was obtained by the parties, which met in May of this year, from state and federal authorities trying to reach an agreement on a national basis for dealing with the critical problem of public liability and rising insurance rates. Data compiled by Trowbridge Consulting for the government indicated that the problems surrounding public liability insurance were attributable, in part at least, to the increasing cost of claims. That data suggested that personal injury claims had been increasing by an average of more than 10 per cent each year for the last 20 years or more. Bodily injury claims made up only 25 per cent of public liability claims but accounted for 65 per cent of the cost of public liability claims. The average size of bodily injury payments was approximately $25,000.There have been real increases in the cost of personal injury claims due to increases in the propensity of people to make a claim following an injury and higher compensation paid to people for a given type or severity of injury. The objectives of the range of government reforms—some of which have been introduced in this legislation and which are a result of research and of the meeting of state and federal authorities—are to reduce costs, ensure current availability of cover and achieve future stability of premiums and access to cover. Before I deal with the detail of the bill I will make a cursory review of some of the background circumstances, some of which were eloquently referred to by the member for Kennedy, amongst others. I have not had the experience, unfortunately, of being involved in crocodile hunting or possible loss or injury in a rainforest—although I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Daintree. Recreational activities of the sort contemplated by this draft legislation are activities which ordinary Australians consider they should be able to carry out without fear of being sued by another in respect of any loss or injury involved in the course of that activity.In particular, we have seen stories in daily newspapers and heard anecdotally of pony clubs and other such organisations being curtailed and, in some cases that I know of, stopped because of the rising costs of insurance—and in particular public liability insurance—occurring as a result of requirements by the insurers that would lead to the increasing of premiums should the activities continue. Normal sporting activities such as playing rugby league, soccer, rugby union and Aussie rules—part of the daily life and daily activities of almost all Australians; part of the genre of our whole society—have been put in doubt by the wave of claims and the threat of increasing premiums, and in many cases actual increases in premiums, in respect of recreational activities. As a result of this the administration costs of the bodies involved with the organisation of those activities have skyrocketed. Some have had to leave the industry and some of the smaller sporting clubs have had to close.This does not only affect the amateur bodies of the type which I have mentioned. The member for Kennedy mentioned the incident at Bondi Beach concerning Waverley Council. I have some knowledge of this incident as it occurred in my electorate. The details of that case give rise to some doubt as to the appropriateness of the administration of the claim in the courts. The matter was before a jury and there were some doubts as to the appropriateness of the instructions given both by the insurer and the council in the particular circumstances of that case. The payout and the circumstances in which the claim was paid—it involved a swimmer, in somewhat obscure circumstances, approaching the beach, swimming between the flags and nonetheless, after injury, being able to obtain a very large payout—shocked the whole community. It also brought into question the role of councils—which are, of course, well insured and, in the case of Waverley and other councils along the eastern seaboard in Sydney, well funded—and raised real questions regarding the proper administration of their finances. That is how serious the matter has become.It is therefore appropriate that all sides of politics, at every level—Commonwealth, state and territory, and local—agree that measures need to be taken. National leadership is necessary to ensure that these recreational activities, whether they are supported by local authorities such as Waverley Council or by amateur sporting bodies such as pony clubs or rugby league clubs, or whether they are individual ad hoc activities that might give rise to claims, are addressed by the legislators of the nation. It is in that context that I assert my support for this legislation. I appreciate that not all of the fault in relation to the problem addressed by this legislation lies with the courts, and not all of the fault lies with first-instance judges. My own assessment is that appellate judges have frequently failed to apply the strict regimen of the law in relation to the rules of negligence, in relation to defences to the law of negligence, and—in respect of the Trade Practices Act—in relation to the real intent and ordinary meaning of the legislation. We have moved from a system of recovery and compensation for negligence claims to one of compensation in respect of strict liability, in effect. Negligence has, in a sense, become a byword—almost a joke. So the blame does not lie only at the feet of first-instance judges. It also lies very much at the feet of those in courts of appeal and in higher courts whose role it is to ensure that the law is properly supervised and not brought into disrepute. It also lies at the feet of legislators, because legislators—both state and federal—have, over the years, introduced laws which have encouraged judges to extend the reach of the law of negligence and the concept of misleading and deceptive conduct as provided for in section 52 of the Trade Practices Act and other like provisions. The blame thus lies not only with the courts but also with the legislators. We must concede that blame also lies with the insurers. Take the Waverley Council case, for example. In that case, it has been suggested by some of those who were involved in the administration of the matter that the insurer adopted a position which led to the extraordinary increase in the amount of the ultimate liability that it had to pay out by reaching an agreement in respect of the sum to be paid—as ultimately found by the jury. There are many other examples where it has been suggested that insurers need to more closely administer the risk regimes that they are required to administer under their actuarial arrangements. I hope that in due course, with the leadership of the government, all sides of the debate—the insurers, the lawyers and legislators and those involved in recreational activity—can ensure that a balance is reached so that we get a much fairer and a more just system, which is able to be addressed by ordinary people in a society which is fair and free.The Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, Senator Helen Coonan, has been pursuing, in conjunction with her state and territory counterparts, options to improve the availability and affordability of public liability insurance. The ministerial meeting on public liability held on 30 May agreed that the Commonwealth would legislate to allow self-assumption of risk for people who choose to participate in inherently risky activities such as adventure tourism and sports. The Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 implements that commitment.The contractual rights which consumers have under the Trade Practices Act 1974 were not enacted with any specific intention that they might be used to provide remedies where consumers died or were injured as a result of a breach of a condition or warranty implied by the act. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the object of the Trade Practices Act is not subverted by an improper purpose. The government is committed to ensuring that the Trade Practices Act continues to deliver appropriate protection to consumers while promoting an environment in which consumers have information, choice and appropriate redress. The bill contains self-assumption of risk by individuals who choose to participate in a broad range of inherently risky activities which might result in the death of or personal injury to a participant. The bill will allow those individuals to waive their right under the act to sue the business providing the activity should they suffer personal injury as a result of the service not being supplied with due care and skill. The bill seeks to achieve a balance between protecting consumers and allowing them to take personal responsibility in a way that benefits both them and the many small businesses that are involved in recreational activities. On this point, there was an interesting article by Ross Gittins in the Sydney Morning Herald this month, entitled `Insurance “solutions” raise the risk'. Mr Gittins suggested that a problem with the legislation is that it shifts the balance in relation to paying for risky activities to the wrong party; that is, to the party who was possibly least able to address the costs arising from that risk, rather than to the party who was responsible for the risk—who should take responsibility for it. That whole approach has been the cause of the shift towards strict liability and has been rejected by the broader Australian community. What Mr Gittins said is to some extent true, in theory, about the practice in the shift of those risks. But the actuality of the problem faced by this legislature and by the Australian governments who addressed this matter in May—and are still addressing it—is quite different. Therefore, one must, with some reservations, reject the observations of Mr Gittins in the Sydney Morning Herald.The provisions of the bill do not apply retrospectively and do not remove any existing rights the consumer may wish to assert; rather, the rights to redress for injuries under provisions of the act unrelated to section 74 will not be affected by these amendments. As is well known, section 74 provides an implied warranty that services will be provided with due care and skill and that they will be reasonably fit for the purposes for which they are provided. The new section 68B the bill proposes be inserted has the intention of permitting companies who supply recreational services to give effect to contractual terms limiting their liability for death or personal injury caused by their failure to provide services with due care and skill.The new section states that a term in a contract to supply recreational services which operates to exclude, restrict or modify the application of section 74, or the exercise of rights conferred by section 74, or the liability of a company for a breach of warranty implied by section 74, is not void under section 68. I should say, as I draw my remarks to some conclusion, that I have some personal regret that this particular provision is being amended in this fashion. I was the successful counsel for all of the passengers on the Russian cruise liner Mikhail Lemontov, which sank off New Zealand more than a decade ago. Section 68 of the Trade Practices Act was one of the bases on which I succeeded for all of those people. In that case, the Russian authorities—the then Soviet authorities—had obtained waivers in respect of certain claims by some of the Australian passengers. It seems to me that, notwithstanding the experience that I have in these matters, by reason of the policy issues that I have raised earlier in respect of this debate and the important issues now facing the Australian people across the board, we have to move on. This legislation achieves that objective. Finally, it should be added that the review of the law of negligence will examine the interaction between the act and the common law in respect of waivers and voluntary assumption of risk, with a view to ensuring consistency. One issue that has been raised, and which no doubt will be considered in that review, is the role of risk assumption in relation to gross negligence. The parliamentary secretary, when introducing the legislation, also made reference to the possibility of that review dealing with these and other issues. This is important legislation. It is the precursor of other legislation. I think in due course it will be seen as landmark legislation. I commend the bill to the House.22:10:005823Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I have learned a great deal this evening while sitting through the debate on the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002. When I first came in here, I walked into a war zone. There was a lot of conflict going on between the member for Paterson and the member for Hunter. I certainly would not want to get on the wrong side of the member for Paterson; he is a very big boy. I was at some risk of being caught in the crossfire there, so I want to assure the House that I will be giving a peaceful speech this evening.I also listened with interest to the member for Kennedy, who has informed us that there are more crocodiles south of Cairns than there are north of Cairns. I do not know whether the member for Kennedy goes around counting crocodiles, but he would know more about the crocodile population of North Queensland than I would—although, as a former environment department head in Queensland, I did get some introduction to the crocodile issues in North Queensland. I will defer to the member for Kennedy's greater knowledge of crocodiles. He points to a lot of adventure tourism in the wet tropics of North Queensland. Adventure tourism is an important industry there. I will say this for the member for Kennedy: the legislation that is before the House relates to adventure sports and adventure tourism.I was bemused to hear the speech of the member for Mitchell. It was pretty clear that this House has no shortage of members with legal training—in fact, there are quite a few professional lawyers—but the member for Mitchell informed us that this legislation will help in respect of community organisations such as the Scouts, the Guides, the Boys Brigade and the Girls Brigade. As an absolute, practising non-lawyer, I rechecked with all of the relevant documents. The second reading speech says:The purpose of the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 is to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 so that individuals are able to waive their contractual right to sue when undertaking risky recreational activities.The reform contained within this bill will assist operators of businesses such as adventure tourism and sports, who are currently prevented from relying on waivers.I thought it was the case that we were dealing with businesses. I checked with the Bills Digest, which says:Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) states that in a contract where a corporation supplies services to a consumer there is an implied warranty that services will be rendered with due care and skill and that material supplied in connexion with the services will be reasonably fit for the purpose.This particular legislation is meant to amend the Trade Practices Act as it relates to corporations. I assume, as a non-lawyer, that the head of power that we are dealing with is the corporations power, so I was still bemused as to how the member for Mitchell—who, no doubt, professes some legal capacity—has concluded that this will assist non-profit organisations. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum, which I have subsequently checked again, indicates that the amendment contained in this bill will `permit individuals who choose to participate in inherently risky activities' to waive their right under the Trade Practices Act to `sue the business providing the activity, should they suffer personal injury as a consequence of the service provider's failure to supply the services with due care and skill'. It is pretty obvious that this relates to businesses or corporations rather than to not-for-profit community organisations. Although I would empathise with the member for Mitchell and would fully support his desire that legislation be brought into the House that addresses the public liability insurance crisis in relation to community organisations, unfortunately this particular bill does not do that.The early history of government response to the public liability insurance crisis has been marred by a squabble that occurred for many weeks between the minister for small business and the minister for revenue, both having different perspectives, both having different proposed solutions and, even worse than that, both arguing over whose turf it was to deal with this. The Treasurer just stood back and allowed this blue to take place and unfortunately, while all of that was going on, the public liability insurance crisis escalated. In fact, premiums have been forecast to increase by around 30 per cent in 2002, and that follows increases of between 15 and 20 per cent in 2000 and 2001. By any standard, we do have a crisis on our hands. More is the pity that the government has been very sluggish in responding to that, particularly with any sort of legislative response.As a practising non-lawyer, it seems to me that a very clear distinction can be drawn in respect of what should or should not be covered by waivers, and I will give two examples: skydiving and bungee jumping. If someone wants to participate in the inherently risky activity of skydiving, they jump out of a plane with a parachute on, everything is going fine, and as that person hits the ground they twist their ankle, then I think it is fair enough that a waiver could be signed to ensure that there could then be no suing in respect of that. But, if the same person jumped out of the aeroplane, pulled the cord on the parachute, and it just so happened that there was no parachute and the logical consequence followed, then you would think that perhaps the skydiving company might have committed some negligence in that regard. So surely there is a capacity on the part of legislators to draw that distinction. Similarly, if someone wants to participate in the inherently risky activity of bungee jumping and they jump off a cliff with an elastic rope tied around their ankle and, instead of going boing, goes splat because the rope is three or four metres too long, then I would think that there should be some capacity to sue the company for negligence in that case. But, of course, if the person goes boing and in the process of going boing cricks their neck, then you would think it would be perfectly reasonable that the participant in that inherently risky activity should have been able to sign a waiver in the full knowledge that that sort of thing can happen in the ordinary course of bungee jumping. It seems to me that you should be able to sign a waiver with an adventure sport or tourism company in relation to the inherently risky nature of those activities, but where there is absolutely clear negligence I argue that there is still a case for being able to sue in those cases. Also, I strongly argue that minors should not be able to sign such a waiver; surely, people who are of legal age should be able to, but not minors.They are some concerns about the legislation that I think could reasonably be taken into account. Unfortunately, the legislation is not as all-embracing as members opposite have claimed in the speeches that they have made while I have been here tonight. I want to ask rhetorically: what is it that precipitated the public liability insurance crisis? There is no doubt that, if you looked at the incidence of legal cases and the size of settlements, they have been escalating over time. But I think it is more difficult to argue that something happened in a precipitate way that brought on the crisis. There must have been an intersection of some other event. Having talked to some people in the insurance industry, I put to them that surely the events of September 11 have had some impact. They indicate that the collapse of reinsurers, as a result of the burdens of those sorts of costs, has had an impact on the costs of insurers and, similarly, the collapse of local insurance companies, such as HIH, have certainly contributed to this crisis. It is a crisis that needs to be dealt with within the industry and through federal and state legislation. The Carr government is doing everything it can to address this issue, but I think the Commonwealth has been particularly slow to respond.I want to talk about a few options as possible solutions to the public liability crisis, in so far as it relates to community organisations. In my electorate and throughout Queensland, and indeed throughout Australia, I think it is an enormous shame that community organisations such as sporting organisations, social clubs and even school fetes are having to abandon their annual activities because they simply cannot afford the huge increases in public liability insurance premiums. The government has stood aside from it, has watched it happen over the last couple of years and has been extremely tardy in responding to it. Meanwhile, a lot of community groups are abandoning their activities. These community organisations are so central to the task of building stronger communities that we should no longer stand aside and watch this happen.I want to raise two or three options that seem to me to make perfect sense, but I would be very interested in the views of others. What would be wrong with creating a fund for community organisations? I am not talking about profit making organisations but non-profit community organisations. Surely it is not beyond the wit of governments to create a fund such that, at least for the time being, those community organisations can get some relief in terms of public liability insurance premiums. Maybe a government does not have to do that; maybe the insurance industry itself can do that. I understand from talking to them that some consideration might be given to this to head off the most acute problems in public liability insurance for community organisations. I urge the insurance industry to demonstrate good faith. It would be tremendous public relations for the industry itself to establish such a fund.Another possibility, which goes much broader, is the New Zealand model. The member for Braddon has been talking to me about that model. Perhaps there should be a more active national debate about whether we should move to a scheme such as New Zealand's, because a lot of these problems are not simply going to go away but are going to escalate as the incidence and size of settlements continues to increase. The third option goes to the now almost unspoken word `GST'. The government has in fact benefited in revenue from the public liability insurance crisis because as premiums go up, the 10 per cent GST, based on the value of premiums, also goes up. I know the government is completely opposed to further exemptions from the GST. I have done some calculations which indicate that only about two-thirds of consumption—when I say `only' it is a large proportion—is taxed by the GST. Why wouldn't the government at least be able to consider, perhaps on a temporary basis, providing relief rather than getting 10 per cent on top of the already rapidly escalating premiums? I had a look at this when I was on the back bench. It would not be administratively difficult for the government to have a look at perhaps providing temporary relief from the GST at least for those organisations that are being caught up in this public liability insurance crisis.There is food for thought for the government there. I think it is possible. That is what we ought to be doing—engaging in a proper debate about solutions to the public liability insurance crisis. This legislation deals with one aspect of that—that is, in relation to corporations, in relation to adventure activities in sport and tourism. We think the legislation does have flaws, but we are not going to oppose it. I hope that the Senate has a good look at the legislation and that there is an opportunity to provide constructive comment on it in the Senate. But I think it is reasonable to be able to sign a waiver in respect of the capacity to sue in relation to sporting and adventure tourism and, in particular, to companies. For that reason I do not oppose this bill and I hope the government will move very quickly to find more comprehensive solutions. 22:26:005826Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Unfortunately, the member for Rankin has only left me a couple of minutes to speak in this debate tonight and I am not going to be here tomorrow morning because of another matter. I thought I was going to get 10 minutes, which would have been enough for me to say what I needed to say. But in the couple of minutes I have, and before I get into the bulk of what I wanted to say, I want to take up some points made by the member for Rankin. He made much of saying that he was a non-practising lawyer—83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—Practising non-lawyer.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—A practising non-lawyer. Certainly I am in the same mould. But he clearly demonstrated he has no knowledge at all of the Constitution. It is of great concern that somebody who actually headed up a state government department has no understanding of what levels of government are responsible for what. He made out that the whole public liability insurance issue is totally a federal government matter. The simple fact is that common law is the responsibility of states. Rather than talking about things the Commonwealth should be doing which, in fact, constitutionally they cannot, he should have been out there getting the states to do something.I was not going to knock the states, until I heard the contribution from the member for Rankin; but if anybody has been slow in this matter it has been the states. He even finished off his contribution—which really was a very poor one—by saying that the federal government get GST from premiums, therefore they can afford to waive it for a while to sort out insurance. It is the state governments that get the GST, not the federal government, so it should be the state governments that should be providing the waiver. He also talked about community groups and public liability. Those are all the responsibility of the states. In the areas where we can do something we are doing something. This legislation is a prime example of that. We are bringing in legislation that we, federally, under the Constitution, have responsibility for. I know all the states are moving towards this, and I congratulate them on doing the things that they have to do. As I said, I did not want to get into a slanging match between Commonwealth and states until I heard the outrageous comments from the member for Rankin.But there is a major problem. The whole insurance issue certainly has changed. It is a myriad of things, and there should not be any political point scoring about this. It is no one particular government's fault, or anything like that. A whole series of things have happened globally that have caused the particular problem. The Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 is certainly something that the federal government could act on, and is acting on. It is a matter that is crucial to so many of the industries and businesses throughout my electorate of Eden-Monaro. In the coastal area and, in particular, in the mountains there are numerous businesses in adventure tourism. When I have an opportunity to speak further on this bill in the continuation of this debate—and I will have to work out with the Whip how I do that because I will not be here tomorrow until lunchtime as I will be going down to see water coming out for the Snowy River—I will talk more about those particular businesses.Debaet interrupted.Adjournment582710000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.582722:30:005827Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Until recently, the MV Wallarah carried coal between Catherine Hill Bay in the Shortland electorate and the port of Newcastle. Unfortunately for the crew of the MV Wallarah and the people who live between Catherine Hill Bay and the port, Lake Coal sold the MV Wallarah and decided to ship the coal by road. That means that there are 140 new coal truck movements per day and that the crew of the MV Wallarah is now unemployed. The local community supported the crew of the MV Wallarah and opposed the transportation of coal by road. The MV Wallarah was a quality ship—it was noted worldwide for being a quality ship—which provided employment to Australians and transported coal without impinging on people's lifestyles and destroying the infrastructure.The MV Wallarah is no more. It had the support of the community and it had a long history and connection with the local area and the coal industry, but it is no more. It was sold to Intercontinental Shipping Management last week and it has been renamed the Ikuna. It has been re-registered in Tonga. The Australian crew has been sacked and replaced with a Tongan crew. It is now a ship that sails under a flag of convenience. Flag of convenience vessels are vessels owned by one country, flagged in another and crewed in a third—this one is actually flagged and crewed in one country—and, in many cases, it is very difficult to even trace the owner. The MV Wallarah is now sailing under a Tongan flag of convenience with a cheaper Tongan crew. The Australian workers are unemployed. The government has issued this newly renamed ship with a single voyage permit. It will now carry wheat from South Australia to Newcastle. This ship, which was previously owned and operated by Australians, is now flagged in Tonga with a cheap crew. It is hardly good enough. The Tongan flag is a disgraced flag internationally. I think it is really important to note that in this parliament. Ships sailing under the Tongan flag have been involved in running guns and people smuggling—something that this government has been very vocal about in its opposition. But here itis supporting the transfer of an Australian ship to a Tongan flag. It is offensive, it is anti-Australian and it is anti-worker. This is an abuse of the permit system and a blatant attempt by the Howard government to destroy the Australian shipping industry. The Howard government has absolutely no commitment to the Australian shipping industry and absolutely no commitment to Australian workers. Two years ago the Howard government asked Access Economics to report on the effect of a strong shipping industry in Australia. The report has been completed but the government refuses to release it. `Why?' you might ask. I have my own thoughts on that matter. I believe that the report demonstrates how important it is to a nation that is an island nation to have a strong shipping industry. I say that it is not good enough that the government refuses to release that report. I call on the government to immediately investigate the abuse of the permit system and to release the Access Economics report on the impact of the Australian shipping industry on the Australian economy. I understand that today there was a protest by the Maritime Union of Australia. They are most concerned about this government's lack of commitment to the Australian shipping industry. (Time expired)582822:35:005828Ticehurst, Kenneth, MPMr TICEHURST00ANFDobellLP10—Tonight I rise to address the House on one of the greatest tragedies any parent would ever have to face: the tragedy of losing a child. Currently in Australia there are a number of parents who are having to deal with that very tragedy. As at the end of July this year, there have been 24 deaths in Australia which have all been due to the onslaught of a relatively new menace in our community, one that has been identified as meningococcal disease. It is an illness that can strike without warning, and a disease that can be extremely difficult to diagnose. In its early stages it can wreak so much damage so very quickly. Worldwide there are 500,000 cases of meningococcal reported annually and each year 50,000 people die of the disease. However, if the disease is diagnosed in its early stages, it can be treated effectively. So it is obvious that we all must remain vigilant in the face of such a threat to human life. Last Friday in my electorate of Dobell I attended the launch of a new initiative by the Meningococcal Association of Australia. This association represents a broad group of people dedicated to fighting this terrible disease. Their new initiative took the form of a brochure designed to educate and inform the public about the relevant symptoms and the steps they can take in the event that somebody is suspected of having meningococcal disease. It is imperative that all parents obtain a copy of this brochure. The Meningococcal Association of Australia desperately needs more funds to ensure that enough brochures can be printed so that all parents are alerted to this disease, and in turn our defences against any further outbreak can be strengthened.Shortly, I will be distributing copies of this brochure to all members of both houses, regardless of their political persuasion. I would respectfully ask that they use this brochure to alert their electorates to the steps that parents can take in the face of meningococcal disease. Information about this disease can be found on the web site: www.meningococcal.org.au. It is also highly appropriate that the launch of the brochure took place in my electorate because the Central Coast has a dubious distinction: the region has amongst the highest rates of meningococcal disease in Australia.In fact, recently this disease struck very close to home when Luci, the youngest daughter of two of my closest friends, Sara and David Jarrett, caught this terrible disease. Fortunately, at the first sign of symptoms, Sara took Luci to the local GP who gave her a penicillin injection and she was then rushed off to Gosford Hospital. On arriving at the hospital, Sara insisted that the doctors assume that she had meningococcal disease and be treated accordingly. Soon her worst fears proved correct, with Luci's symptoms increasing. But, due to the early reaction of the doctors at Gosford Hospital, her daughter was eventually cured with no lasting effects. However, for Craig and Julie Calverley of Mardi, also in my electorate, despite their own instincts and the fact that they also rushed their daughter to Wyong hospital, early diagnosis was not achieved and, sadly, their daughter died from meningococcal disease. So you can see that the Central Coast of New South Wales has already paid a high price in relation to the effects of the meningococcal disease and there would be no better place in Australia to launch such an awareness campaign.What impressed me so much about the launch of this new program was that it was conducted by two other people in my electorate of Dobell who have also experienced the very worst that this dreadful disease can inflict. On 5 June 2001, Michael and Sue-Anne Sanig of Berkeley Vale lost their lovely son Stephen to the ravages of meningococcal disease; he was only seven years of age. Yet here were two people who, despite the enormous pain endured over the loss of their son, had chosen to face that horrific loss not only with tremendous dignity but also with enough courage to look to the future and to use their experience to help others. Michael and Sue-Anne Sanig are an example to all of us. They, along with Joe MacManamon, general manager of the Meningococcal Association of Australia, and many other volunteers, have worked tirelessly to bring this project to fruition. I congratulate them for their efforts.I would also like to congratulate the Howard government for funding the meningococcal C vaccination program. At a cost of $41 million in the first year, this program will ensure that over one million Australians will be vaccinated against group C meningococcal disease. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is a giant step forward towards finding a solution to stopping the spread of this terrible disease. However, it is important to point out that the two predominant strains of meningococcal are referred to as B and C. (Time expired)582922:40:005829Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I take the opportunity tonight to speak about the decision of the National Rugby League to take 37 points from Canterbury and fine them $500,000. I want to talk about the origin of this, which of course is superleague. Superleague led to massively inflated player payments. In the battle to sign players, some reserve graders found themselves on $300,000. Superleague led to a split competition in 1997. The reconciliation lead to a united competition, but criteria were established to move to a 14-team competition that was designed to exclude South Sydney Rabbitohs. Superleague teams were all given exemptions from the salary cap for a two-year period. The culture of inflated payments was perpetuated. South Sydney were excluded from the right to play in the NRL competition on 15 October 1999. Our challenge to the criteria reads like a crystal ball into the future. We said that North Queensland would not survive—and they did not. News Limited had to come in and buy the club. We said that the Auckland Warriors would collapse—and they did, owing players hundreds of thousands of dollars, only to reappear in a Patricks-like venture as the New Zealand Warriors. We said that the Northern Eagles joint venture would not survive—and it has not, and Manly Warringah return to the competition next year. And we said that there were massive breaches of the salary cap. We now know that the Canterbury Bulldogs were rorting it by more than $2 million. Souths played by the rules and were excluded from the 2000 and 2001 competitions. Canterbury's administration abused the rules and have received a comparatively lesser penalty to that endured by Souths, who played by the rules. Souths fans have great sympathy for Canterbury's fans. We know what it is like to be disappointed by decisions. The fans are the innocent victims of the self-indulgence of the Canterbury administration. My colleague the member for Rankin has blamed the salary cap. This view is economic rationalism gone mad. Sports should be community based, not business based. The salary cap, and its enforcement, is a critical instrument in ensuring a semblance of a level playing field. There is no point in having it, if it is not enforced—if only to save greedy club executives from themselves. David Gallop and the NRL deserve great credit for making a courageous decision. This, together with the return of Souths, is truly the end of the superleague debacle and will restore faith with fans, including Canterbury fans, over the longer term. It has been a privilege to be a part of South Sydney's return to the NRL. We have had a mixed year on the field, but we have now avoided the wooden spoon. We have averaged the highest metropolitan crowds, with an average of 15,000. We are third only to Brisbane and Newcastle, which are stand-alone teams that each have a whole city as their base of support. We have 22,000 members, which is many times more than any other team in the league. Next year we have Brian Fletcher, Chris Walker, Lee Hookey, Ashley Harrison, Willie Peters, Justin Smith, Ahmed Bajouri and Mark Minichiello all signed to the South Sydney Rabbitohs—83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—Under the cap?R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—within the salary cap. We will be an extremely competitive team next year. We will make the finals, and we will do it by playing by the rules. The whole superleague exercise has been a very sad exercise, because it has been a time when money and big business interests were put ahead of the local communities that are the basis and foundation stone of rugby league. I congratulate in particular David Gallop, who I think has shown extraordinary leadership and has moved the National Rugby League into a position whereby, once again, all rugby league supporters can be very proud. I encourage Canterbury rugby league supporters to continue to get out there and support their team in the last couple of rounds and also next year. It is the fans who own the game, not any corporation, nor any administration such as that which abused the rules to the great pain of their own fans. (Time expired)583022:45:005830Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—One of the benefits of being a member of parliament is that you get to meet so many interesting people as you move around the community. And it is not really until you go looking that you begin to appreciate the extent of history and memory being carried around in people's heads. I came across one such person in Kiama. Edith Murphy is a very alert 90-year-old lady with an interesting ancestor who is linked to all parliamentarians—indirectly at least. She lives alone in a little flat, and everyone calls her `Tiny'. I was fortunate enough to meet up with her and to listen to her story.If I were to tell you that her ancestor's name was Thomas Hansard the connection would become immediately apparent. Mrs `Tiny' Murphy is proud to have such a relative and proud of her association with our history and the history of parliament. This information came about largely by accident. My office had an out-of-electorate call for a congratulatory message for a 90th birthday. Through some oversight the message was not delivered, so naturally I felt duty bound to make amends in some way. The personal touch is always the best, so I made arrangements to call on her personally to apologise. My staffer rang a family member to make the arrangements because we wanted it to be a surprise. In the course of the conversation Mrs Murphy's daughter revealed the family connection. Of course, I immediately became interested in the story.Eventually I met with Mrs Murphy and had a long discussion with her over a cup of tea and cakes. What an amazing character she is! I sought the advice of the Kiama Family History Centre, and I am especially indebted to Mr Ray Thorburn for confirming Mrs Murphy's history. He gave me a photocopied record of a number of documents recording the history of Thomas Hansard, and the first was a copy of an unpublished biographical memoir of Luke Hansard, son of Thomas, printed in 1829. The title cover reads:Biographical Memoir of Luke Hansard, Esquire, many years printer to the House of Commons—not published—printed by James and Luke G. Hansard, 1829.A foreword by Lord Colchester, in an extract from his letter, written in quaint English, reads:There remains a further duty to perform, and to you it cannot be an unpleasing though melancholy office, to put this Biographical Memoir into a more permanent and suitable form; prefixing to it a good engraving of one of the best of those portraits of your Father, which I understand you prevailed upon him to have painted for the satisfaction of his family. There is an engraving attached but regrettably the quality of the copy does not do the story justice. The document was endorsed as being presented to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Rt Hon. Charles Manners Sutton. Included with the biographical details is an extract from the Masonic Club Journal of 14 January 1945, from which I quote:It is thought you might be interested and glad to know that Doctor NW Hansard of Jervis Bay is a direct descendent of the Hansards of English Parliamentary fame.And from another extract of what appears to be one of those social gossip columns from an unknown time, I quote:HANSARD LEAVES AN IMPRINT IN KIAMA Bet none of you knew that Edith Murphy of Mark Street, Kiama is a direct descendent of Luke Hansard, a printer at the British House of Commons in 1829 from whom Parliamentary Hansards get their name.In an interesting side note, Mrs Murphy, on her mother's side, is also related to the Hon. George Audley Coote, the man responsible for laying the first cable to Australia—from New Caledonia to Bundaberg, Queensland.To me, my cup of tea with Mrs Murphy and the chat we had became more than that. Sitting with her, listening to her story, I became mesmerised by the magic of a time past and realised how small the world actually is. How many other stories like that are out there? From their telling we draw a certain comfort and get a sense of who we are. That is why I believe it is so important to stay in touch with the older members of our community, because we can gain from their experiences. The only way we can really do that is to actually take the time to go out there and ask. It is a personally satisfying experience to sit down with such people and to listen to them. Not only do I get something from it but they too get the satisfaction of talking to someone who actually cares about the things they are talking about. It is ultimately a rewarding process for all concerned. Mrs Murphy is a living link to our past, and I am proud to have been given the opportunity to represent her and many of our older citizens in parliament.583122:50:005831Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Yesterday in the grievance debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Lindsay, said that all levels of government need to be involved in housing, planning and lifestyle issues in Western Sydney. She was highlighting one of the great failures of this government: it has no interest in urban lifestyle and planning policy. In this House I shadow a phantom. There is no minister for housing and urban development. There is no minister for community security. All the great changes in our cities are being driven by federal government policies—economic openness, the migration program and major infrastructure decisions. Yet when it comes to the management and consequences of urban change the Howard government has passed the buck to the states and local government. With the winding back of the first home owners grant, it has no strategy for housing affordability. With its $1 billion cut to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, it has no commitment to social housing construction. With its neglect of planning and Landcom issues, it has no policies for containing urban sprawl and preserving the lifestyle of our cities.So, too, it has no interest in the No. 1 issue facing our suburbs and towns—the importance of community security. People living in fear and uncertainty in their homes do not care where the solution comes from—local, state or federal government—they just want a solution. All levels of government have a responsibility for community security. If we care about the people we represent—their problems, their fears, the issues on their streets—then we will always try to help them, rather than just blaming other levels of government. Just as Labor believe in federal responsibilities for cities, we want the federal government to play a constructive role in community security. This is why we will establish community safety zones, with more police and community policing resources to tackle specific problems like drug dealers, handguns and gang violence. Just as criminals target certain neighbourhoods, the federal government should target extra resources to fight this problem, in cooperation with the states. Other policies are needed to prevent crime. We should be tough on crime, and even tougher on the causes of crime.Australia needs a coastguard and an effective Coastwatch to prevent the smuggling of drugs and hand guns—protecting our borders to keep crime out of our suburbs and towns. We also need to rethink the design of our neighbourhoods, learning the lessons of crime prevention research. With my colleague the member for Hasluck, I recently received a briefing from Gosnells council in Perth, on its three-year study into the correlation between urban form and the incidence of crime. The conclusions are stunning. Neighbourhoods with visibility, activity and community life on the streets are likely to have a 40 per cent lower rate of crime. Streets that are within walking distance of major public facilities have less crime. Pedestrians provide a natural form of surveillance. This is why Gosnells is spending a record amount of money on footpaths: to encourage pedestrian activity and surveillance.The Gosnells `SafeCity' research makes perfect sense. In recent decades we have designed our suburbs to maximise privacy and minimise car and pedestrian movements. Unfortunately, privacy for the resident is also privacy for the burglar. High fences, quiet streets and isolated areas assist the criminals as they do their worst. Turning inward actually increases crime. Cul-de-sacs with fenced laneways are 22 per cent more likely to be burgled. Homes that back onto parks and other isolated places are 37 per cent more likely to be broken into. The best solution to crime is community and visibility. Streets where the homes face each other, where people can see each other's front yards, have a lower rate of crime. It is not difficult to build our new suburbs this way. `SafeCity' has developed the town planning principles that make this possible, cutting crime by 40 per cent—a huge decrease in crime—simply through better urban design. The federal government should be spreading this success to every local government area in the nation. So, too, it should be initiating urban renewal projects: upgrading the housing stock but also improving neighbourhood design. In Riverview, near Ipswich, the Queensland government's urban renewal program has reduced crime by more than 60 per cent. Labor are not content to leave this issue to the states and local government. We believe in a new cooperative approach to community security, with all levels of government pulling their weight. Nothing matters more to Australia's future than the security and safety of our people. Labor believe in federal responsibilities for cities—affordable cities, green cities and, most of all, safe cities.583222:55:005832Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock at Mowamba Creek I will represent the federal Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, Ian Macfarlane, at a ceremony—I suppose that is the best way to describe it—along with the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, and the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, for the release of some historic water. This will be the first release of water back into the Snowy River. It is a small start, but it is a start. It is the start of what will be a return of about 212 gigalitres over the next 10 years. Ultimately, hopefully, it will eventually build up to 292 gigalitres. This has come about as a result of the corporatisation of the Snowy Scheme, and it has been a long time coming. However, with the launch of Snowy Hydro on 28 June, it has provided the necessary degree of certainty to allow the Snowy Scheme to move forward. Part of that corporatisation was ensuring that we get environmental flows back into a number of our rivers, including the Snowy. The corporatisation has not only cemented the Snowy Scheme's future as the largest supplier of renewable energy to the national electricity market—with its headquarters in Cooma in my electorate—but also provided the opportunity for us to start to address some of those environmental problems that I mentioned.The decision to increase environmental flows to the Snowy River has certainly been a difficult balancing act, and that is why it has taken some time. It is hard enough for governments—any government, whether it be state or federal—to make some fairly major decisions, but when you have decisions that involve the federal government, the New South Wales government and the Victorian government it takes a lot longer, and that is why it has gone on for some time. At the same time, we have kept in mind the issue of water for the people of South Australia, and particularly Adelaide. From a federal point of view, we had to balance all of those things.The original reasons for the decision to build the Snowy Scheme—to promote irrigation in the Murray-Darling Basin and to produce large quantities of clean hydro-electric power—are even more important priorities today. The Murray-Darling Basin produces around $12 billion worth of agricultural production each year. The Snowy Scheme produces clean, greenhouse gas-free electricity and is the largest renewable electricity generator on the Australian mainland. The Commonwealth government has listened long and hard to the interests of the people who live along the Snowy River, the irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin and the people of South Australia, and has considered the need to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and the needs of the environment. Taking all of those things together is a fairly major juggling event. As a direct result we have an increase in environmental flows not only in the Snowy River, which will start tomorrow morning, but also in the River Murray and other key alpine rivers.The money to permit the Snowy River to flow will come from the states, and that is appropriate. New South Wales and Victoria are the responsible states in that respect. But the Commonwealth has made the Snowy River flows possible by putting $75 million over 10 years towards environment flows in the Murray River. There is a huge financial cost to the Snowy Scheme in delivering the Snowy River and alpine river flows. Without offsets, the Snowy Scheme would lose large volumes of water from generation, which would affect the financial viability of the scheme. As the Snowy Scheme will be able to generate renewable energy from the River Murray environmental flows before they are released to the Murray, this will help the scheme to largely offset the financial cost of the Snowy River flows. The Snowy Scheme is making all of this possible today because it is lending water to the Snowy River for the next three years, and will soak up the remainder of the costs for delivering the Snowy flows into the future.I am looking forward to being there tomorrow morning—along with the New South Wales Premier, the Victorian Premier and my colleague the state member for Monaro, Peter Webb—at the historic event of the initial release of water from the Berri aqueduct. Basically, we will pull the plug on the Berri aqueduct, which is out at Jindabyne, on Mowamba Creek, and start those flows. (Time expired)23:00:005833House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices5833The following notices were given:GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss to present a bill for and act to amend legislation relating to the dairy industry and farm household support, and for related purposes.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss to present a bill for and act relating to service provision for the egg industry.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss to present a bill for and act to deal with transitional and consequential matters related to the enactment of the Egg Industry Service Provision Act 2002, and for related purposes.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr Nelson to present a bill for an act to amend the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, and for related purposes.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey to present a bill for an act to amend laws relating to the Australian Capital Territory, and for related purposes.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville to move:That this House:(1) recognises the significance of the credit union movement in the framework of Australia's financial services;(2) recognises the contribution of 200 Australian credit unions and its 3.5 million members not only to the concept of mutuality but also as an alternative source of housing and domestic finance;(3) notes its role in providing banking-type and lending services in country and many other areas vacated by the traditional banks;(4) recommends a reassessment of ASIC and APRA regulations (commensurate with the size and role of credit unions); and(5) requests a re-examination of taxation, franking credits and register requirements as they apply to credit unions.2002-08-27—————The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley) took the chair at 4.00 p.m.Bills5835R16085835Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Mr Howard:That this bill be now read a second time.16:00:005835Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial. It is an issue that I have had difficulty resolving myself. I thank all of the people who have provided me with their opinions on embryonic stem cell research. The bases for their opinions range from the religious, to the ethical and to the hope of a medical breakthrough. As is reflected in the current debate in the parliament, I have had to balance my religious beliefs with the possibilities of medical research. Decisions we make every day are based on our moral beliefs. For me the basis of these beliefs includes my family upbringing, my religion, my education and training, and my professional ethics as a medical doctor. In an evolving area such as this, where the science is developing faster than the regulatory framework, we have to keep up to date with the latest scientific developments and the issues they raise. My understanding is that, when IVF was pioneered in Australia in the late 1970s, there was not sufficient public debate. In some ways the current debate on this research is long overdue. There is an inherent value in debating issues, such as embryonic stem cell research, in the community and the expression of this debate through the parliament, as it highlights genuine ethical and moral concerns and encourages those involved in basic research to consider these important issues.I will first address the issue of human embryo cloning. The bill provides for the prohibition of human embryo cloning. This technology is relatively new. In 1997 it was announced that Dolly the sheep was successfully cloned. However, only about 10 per cent of cloned embryos result in live births, and amongst the live births there is a high percentage of malformations and deformities. In fact, when you look at the process that was required to create Dolly the sheep, you see that it took about 430 eggs, 40 donor sheep and 277 reconstructed eggs to develop 29 embryos. After using 13 surrogate mothers, one clone was born: Dolly. Clearly this technology is dangerous, and it is unacceptable to experiment in this way with humans. Apart from these obvious technical problems, Dolly appears to have cells that are just as old as the adult cell from which she is cloned. She already has arthritis.Some scientists in Italy, South Korea and the United States may have already cloned humans to a four-cell stage. I join with the vast majority of my parliamentary colleagues to condemn human embryo cloning and to support the measures in this bill which will prohibit this. This technology is dangerous: it raises the spectre of designer babies and could lead to the commodification of children. If pursued, it will distort families and relationships within them. Division 1 of part 2 of this bill, which codifies prohibited practices, prohibits the creation, implantation and import and export of a human embryo clone. I support this section of the bill.Embryonic stem cell research is a separate issue which involves different procedures. The isolation of human embryo stem cells was reported in November 1998 by James Thompson of the University of Wisconsin. Stem cells are cells that can reproduce themselves into different specialised cells. There are two types of stem cells: adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are less contentious than embryonic stem cells and can be taken from adult tissue and also umbilical cord blood. Embryonic stem cells are taken from the inner mass of the blastocyst at about four or five days. The specialised cells that the stem cells can develop into range from neural cells, including brain, spinal cord and nerve cells, to heart cells and insulin-producing cells. As a result of this, stem cell research does offer the potential for medical treatments for degenerative conditions such as diabetes mellitus, spinal cord injury, Parkinson's and other conditions.Currently, modern medicine cannot reverse the degenerative nature of these diseases. Potentially, this research offers the possibility of cell based therapeutics, rather than drug based therapeutics. This is an exciting development which we should allow to proceed subject to strict regulation. It is for this reason that I have decided to support the sections of the bill which will regulate the use of excess ART embryos.What is involved in research on a surplus embryo? During the IVF process, the majority of embryos are frozen at the four-cell or eight-cell stage. They are later thawed and implanted in the uterus. Some IVF clinics freeze embryos at the blastocyst stage, which is at five days and consists of a clump of cells of about 100 to 150 cells. When these embryos are implanted, approximately 60 to 80 per cent of them do not implant and are lost. This is the reason for the current excess embryos in storage—to minimise the number of cycles of treatment that women may have, in terms of boosting their fertility, they prefer to collect the embryos beforehand because of the high loss rate. The embryonic stem cells are extracted from the inner cell mass of the embryo at about five to seven days after fertilisation. Once they are removed, the embryo is unable to grow or develop. The inner cell mass is removed through either immunosurgery or microdissection. In the process of micromanipulation, the embryo is held with a glass pipette and then the inner cell mass is removed. The trophoblast, which gives rise to the placenta and so on, remains. The remaining cells are alive, although the part which gives rise to the foetus is destroyed. This is the contentious part.The point I would like to make to people considering this debate is this: it may be possible in the future to harvest some cells of the inner cell mass and still have a viable embryo. This is currently possible in cows, but not in humans. This raises an interesting moral point. At present, the embryos, depending on the different state legislation, after five or 10 years in storage frozen with liquid nitrogen, if they are not to be implanted, are thawed out and they succumb as they are exposed to room temperature. If it were possible to remove part of that inner cell mass without affecting the viability of the embryo, would the research then be acceptable, even if the embryo was going to succumb anyway? If it is possible to allow the embryo to thaw at room temperature and you reach a stage where the embryo cannot be implanted, would it then be acceptable to remove the inner cell mass tissue? This is the issue on which the debate rests.Most people have made the distinction between having the embryos thaw and die and using them for research. At present, embryos which are unused are thawed at room temperature after five to 10 years, depending on the different state legislation. If they are not destined for implantation then they do not grow or develop further. Neither embryos which are allowed to thaw nor embryos which are used for research develop beyond the five- to seven-day stage and they both succumb at room temperature. When I considered the process that they go through, I could not find a distinction between embryos which will die anyway and those which will die after the inner cell mass is removed.I liken the issue of this research to how we conceptually deal with organ transplantation. Currently in clinical practice an ethical way has been developed to deal with the issue of organ transplantation. When two clinicians determine that, based on objective tests, a patient is brain dead and has previously consented to be an organ donor or made his wishes known to his family, then his organs may be used for transplantation. The normal process is that they are kept on life support while their organs are harvested. This situation makes us feel uncomfortable. Organ transplantation and embryonic stem cell research raise difficult moral issues, yet organ transplantation is an accepted part of clinical practice today. Both have the potential to deliver enormous benefits to the community. Today there are many people with heart, lung, liver and kidney transplants who would not otherwise be alive. Embryonic stem cell research offers the same promise. The research has the potential to change medical practice from a drug based culture to cell based treatments.Embryonic stem cell research shows great promise in the isolation and growth of stem cells and in the development of new therapies. Adult stem cells are also important for research. Although the advantage of adult stem cells is avoiding rejection by the immune system, adult stem cells retain any genetic abnormality, they are currently more difficult to isolate and grow, and the feasibility of their transplanted use is very poor. Both types of research have promise and, at present, both types of research have limitations. It is disingenuous to argue that embryonic stell cell research should be stopped because it has not yet helped one person. If we adopted this approach, the penicillin mould would still be an interesting exhibit in Oxford and would not have helped anyone. The idea of research is discovery. Embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research should not be undertaken at the expense of one another. The greatest contribution may come by using adult and embryonic stem cells together.A large number of people believe that stem cell research should only be conducted on adult stem cells. I wish to say a little about an article published in Nature magazine in June 2002. Research showed for the first time that adult stem cells could differentiate into different cell types. The research showed that cells taken from mouse bone marrow could differentiate into some of the basic building blocks of tissue: specifically, visceral mesoderm, which gives rise to the smooth muscle in internal organs; neuroectoderm, which gives rise to the skin and the nervous system; and endoderm, which gives rise to the lining of the gut and blood vessels. This was found with both injection into a very early embryo and also injection into an adult host. This research is exciting and turns on its head previously accepted thought about the potential of adult stem cells. However, the consensus of most scientists, including those who produced this research, is that research into adult and embryonic stem cells should proceed in parallel.Different nations have adopted different approaches. The United Kingdom has the most liberal legislation and allows, in constrained circumstances, embryos to be created for research purposes. The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 does not allow for that; it applies only to excess embryos which were in storage before April 2002. Canada, Japan and several European countries have also allowed for embryonic stem cell research. The United States took a different approach. In August 2001, they decided to allow federal funding for existing stem cell lines, which were identified by the National Institute of Health. Australia has a number of those stem cell lines which are identified. Earlier this year, in a free vote of the Bundestag, Germany voted to allow the importation of embryonic stem cell lines which were already in existence in January 2002, but will not allow the creation of stem cell lines within Germany. My view of this research was initially cautious. I favoured the approach which was adopted by the minority in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry into cloning and embryonic stem cell research. The minority view was to confine research to existing stem cell lines. It was the view of some scientists two to three years ago that there was no need to create any further stem cell lines. However, due to a number of scientific problems, I do not believe this approach is viable. The principal problem has been the use of mouse feeder cells in the creation of embryonic stem cell lines. This creates the problems associated with a xenograft—that is, a transplant from another species.On the issue of how this research will be translated into results, I do not believe that therapeutic cloning or cell nuclear replacement is likely to be morally acceptable, due to the large numbers of viable human embryos which will be destroyed. There are other more ethically acceptable ways of delivering the benefits of this research in the future. BresaGen in Adelaide have done some early work on fusing a number of embryonic stem cells together so that they have two or three times the normal number of chromosomes. An adult cell nucleus is then added to the super cell. If the embryonic stem cell nuclei are removed, the cell can grow and differentiate. This does not involve the destruction of any further embryos. Another possible way may be to determine how to program adult cell nuclei to the undifferentiated state. This again avoids the problem of using further human embryos.Excess embryos from assisted reproduction technology can only be used if consent has been obtained from the responsible persons and if there is a likelihood of a significant advance in knowledge or improved treatment which cannot be achieved by other means. I am happy with this level of regulation. In this area of research, scientific knowledge is expanding rapidly. Parliament needs to provide a regulatory framework which dictates boundaries for the scientist and which is reflective of the community's attitude. I believe this bill provides the necessary framework in terms of preventing the creation of embryos for research, requiring the consent of donors of embryos, enabling the donors to specify restrictions on the use of donated embryos and requiring research to be conducted in accordance with National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines.This legislation improves the regulatory framework that is in existence today and I intend to support it. I plan to support both the prohibition on human cloning and the regulations on the use of embryos. However, I plan to support the splitting of the bill, as I do not believe it will affect the outcome of the vote on either part of the bill. It is unfair to put some members in the position where they will have to abstain from voting or vote against the bill when they support some of the measures, such as the prohibition of human cloning.In conclusion, I plan to vote for the prohibitions on the creation of human embryo clones. I have decided to support the regulation of embryonic stem cell research, subject to safeguards such as the requirement for approval by the NHMRC. In making this decision, I state that the potential benefits that this research offers sufferers of degenerative disease have been influential in my support for this legislation.16:18:005838Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I would like to offer a word of praise for the contribution of the honourable member for Boothby to the debate regarding the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. It is a rare occurrence for us to speak on a matter of conscience, and a number of contributions on both sides of the debate have been well made. As it is a matter of conscience, I do not think I can stand before this House and parade a better conscience or a superior way of arriving at my decision. Each decision is for each and every person to make. I certainly am opposed to human cloning, but I am also going to oppose other parts of this bill, and I suppose I need to say why.It is true that surplus embryos are generated by the IVF program. Ordinarily, I would not agree to their use other than in terms of procreation, for their current use. However, I acknowledge that most of these embryos will transpire; therefore, I think that raises another issue. My stumbling block in supporting embryonic stem cell research comes from a lack of conviction at this time as to whether medical research is sufficiently advanced to make use of it. So, in a sense, I suppose my opposition is conditional; I am not convinced at this stage.I know that others opposing the bill cannot get beyond the fact that embryos are going to be used and destroyed in such research. I have gone one step further. I do not think anyone can claim any moral superiority in the way they have reasoned or reached their decision on this bill. Some in the debate have questioned the moral authority of churches. I am very much aware that, in history, churches have often stood in the way of scientific progress, but I think it is important that we have institutions like the churches speaking out on these issues. I think that, if we are going to have any caution about things, it ought to be about the use of embryos. In what I thought was an excellent speech, the honourable member for Boothby compared stem cell research to organ transplants. I do not deny the benefits of organ transplants and I think they are an accepted practice today, but I make the observation that the donor has usually made the election—and I congratulate them for this—for parts of their body to be used by the living. Without getting into the technicalities about when life begins, I think it is also fair to say that the donors have enjoyed some life. Whilst I have a great deal of respect for the honourable member for Boothby, I do not necessarily share his argument.Getting back to the moral authority of the church—and I guess I might stray a little bit here, but I will try hard not to—I am very much aware of the current difficulties that Archbishop Pell is going through. Firstly, I should say that I have great regard and friendship for my local bishop, Bishop Kevin Manning. We have not actually discussed this issue, but I have no doubt where he stands. Through my involvement in joint things in my constituency I have got to know the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen. He came down to Canberra and spoke to members of parliament on both sides. I must say that, in discussions with him, I was very troubled about some not unreasonable arguments he put; in particular, the thin end of the wedge argument. I have not quite picked up his line of reasoning; I think each individual will have their own.I deprecate those who wish to attack the churches for their stand. I referred to Archbishop Pell. I think it is very unfortunate that, in the recent allegations, matters were not referred to the police. Of a more local nature, I admire the courage of the Auxiliary Bishop for Canberra, Pat Power, in calling for the Catholic church to review celibacy for priests. But these issues of abuse of children—and all churches have struggled with them—occurred many years ago. I think all churches are trying to deal in a modern way with these issues and have some way to go. I still do not believe the fact that this abuse has occurred disqualifies them from making a contribution to what is really a quite difficult debate.If the possibility of research using embryonic stem cells was much more positive then I would again need to reflect. If that were the case and this bill were defeated—although it does not appear that it will be—I would then wish to revisit that issue. However, I need to make one thing plain. Although the bill has heavy restrictions on the use of embryos that have been produced under the IVF program, I certainly could not contemplate a situation where couples were donating or being remunerated—as they are in some countries for blood donations—for the donation of their embryos for research.I conclude my speech on a point made by the member for Boothby about research in relation to cloning. We all marvelled at the production of Dolly the sheep as a clone but it took 430 eggs, which were extracted from 40 donor sheep, to develop 277 reconstructed eggs and only 29 embryos resulted. Thirteen surrogate mothers were used and all of this resulted in the birth of only one clone—Dolly. I am very much against human cloning and, in fact, I am not sure that any member in this debate has advocated human cloning so, if nothing else, there appears to be an absolute consensus around that issue.I want to compliment those who have contributed to this debate for the generosity of the arguments that they have put forward. I do not think any side can have a sense of moral superiority. I do not think, if I may be a little ungenerous, that any side can say that they have a mortgage on compassion. There are any number of diseases that we would like to see cures for but there is no established evidence that this research will lead directly to a cure, and it is a little unfair to use that argument. I am opposed to embryonic stem cell research but I do support the provisions in this bill against cloning.16:28:005840Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I rise to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I first entered politics after being elected to the New South Wales parliament on Saturday, 19 March 1988 with a strong belief in the democratic process and a determination to focus on the needs and aspirations of the majority of the people who elected me. Like many of my parliamentary colleagues, I have made mistakes—after all, I am human. I have, however, never compromised my principles, integrity, honesty or the mainstream community and Christian family views which I strongly believe in and protect regardless of personal cost. On 21 June 2002 I signed a joint statement in support of adult stem cell research that opposed the deliberate destruction of human embryos for research because I believed it was ethically unnecessary and morally wrong to raid a living human for tissues at the expense of his or her life.Stem cell research has enormous potential for good in the community. The ethical question is not about whether or not to use stem cells but about the source from which they are extracted. There are many sources of stem cells, human embryos being just one of them. This debate is centred on regenerative medicine, which is an exciting new field of medicine whereby different techniques are used to repair damaged organs and tissues. Stem cell therapy is one avenue of regenerative medicine and may benefit many conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, heart disease and cancer. The layman's first question is: what are stem cells? Reading a significant amount of literature, and education in the way of briefings from scientists and others, has alerted me to the fact that stem cells are not only specialised cells but cells that differentiate into more mature stem cells with specialised functions. This is why they may prove useful for treatment of some medical conditions. Stem cells can be taken from living humans—children or adults—without harming them and these are called adult stem cells. There is another group of stem cells which are called embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are taken from surplus IVF embryos or from cloned embryos. Regardless of how the embryo was conceived, the extraction of embryonic stem cells destroys the embryo.During the educational process that many of my parliamentary colleagues in this place, on both sides of the debate, were subjected to, I was able, with what I call my sensitive political nose, to pick up some flaws in some of the things that were being said to me or on which I was being educated during the briefings that I attended from various scientists on both sides of the debate. I was particularly impressed with David Prentice, from Indiana State University, who came to this country to brief members of the parliament. He gave me a copy of a paper, which I would like to take the liberty of reading because it leads to what I believe to be a positive, open and honest professional approach to the issue that he believes in, and it compares starkly against another review which many in this place have been deceived by. I will now quote from the document that I was given by David Prentice:In the debate over use of embryos for research, many promises have been made regarding the use of embryonic stem cells as a panacea for disease and injury. We have been told that embryonic stem cells supposedly could treat many of the diseases that plague mankind, if only more embryos could be used to make the cells and a great deal of money were poured into embryonic researchers' labs. Yet note the qualifiers in all these stories—the `promise', `potential', `possibility', etc. Customarily, before a large amount of resources is directed to promising clinical research, there is substantial evidence that the research will bear fruit for patients. Where is the evidence for embryonic stem cells?The `potential' to form all cell types is based on: 1) leaving the cells in the embryo, where they naturally form all tissues during development and, 2) putting the cells back into an embryo, where they can rejoin the complex signals of normal development. However, when the cells are grown in a lab dish and scientists are tempted to direct the formation of specific cell types, there are significant difficulties getting pure cultures of the desired cells. In virtually all cases where embryonic stem cells have been reported to form a specialised cell type in the lab dish, the truth has been that only a few per cent of the cells in the dish were so transformed. For example, in reports about formation of insulin-secreting cells from embryonic stem cells, only a few per cent of the cells secreted insulin. The remaining majority of the cells were a mixture of other cell types, including nerve, muscle, a few beating heart cells and also cells which continued to grow and divide. Those growing cells point out another significant problem with embryonic stem cells—the potential for tumour formation. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research readily admit embryonic stem cells have a nasty habit of forming tumors when injected into experimental animals.In a report in January 2002 on the possible use of embryonic stem cells to treat Parkinson's disease in rats, 20% of rats injected with embryonic stem cells died from tumors formed in their brains. A treatment which kills one-fifth of the patients is not very promising. Other reports have shown that embryonic stem cells have unstable expression of their genes. This might in fact explain why there is such difficulty in obtaining pure cultures and why they tend to form tumors. In point of fact, no patients, and very few research animals, have benefited from embryonic stem cells after over 20 years of work with the cells.In contrast, alternatives such as adult stem cells are showing success after success. Those who say adult stem cells are not a valid alternative are relying on obsolete, outdated information. A wealth of scientific papers published over the last few years documents that adult stem cells are a much more promising source of stem cells for regenerative medicine. Contrary to previous dogma, adult stem cells show the ability to generate all adult tissues, can be found in many, if not all, adult tissues, and can be grown extensively in culture to provide more than adequate amounts of cells for treatments. Even skin and fat have been found to contain stem cells that can be transformed into other tissues, which could constitute an unlimited supply of stem cells.Not only can adult stem cells be transferred into other cell types in the laboratory dish, but they have also been shown effective in treating various animal models of human disease, including diabetes, stroke, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, heart disease, and retinal degeneration leading to blindness. A direct comparison of the numerous successes of adult stem cells versus the best results using embryonic stem cells clearly documents the greater success and clinical value of adult stem cells.It goes on to say:Moreover, adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells are already being used to treat many of the diseases which are touted as “potential” candidates for embryonic stem cell treatment. Thousands of cancer patients have benefited from bone marrow stem cell and cord blood stem cell treatment. Other patients have been successfully treated for multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, sickle cell anemia, and severe immune deficiencies. Clinical trials have shown success using adult stem cells to form new cartilage so that children can walk, grow new corneas to restore sight to blind patients, treat stroke, and repair damage after heart attacks. Other scientists have rescued legs from gangrene and amputation by injecting the patients' own bone marrow stem cells to grow new blood vessels in the leg. And a recent announcement described the first Parkinson's patient to be treated, using the patient's own adult brain stem cells; the patient has achieved almost complete remission of symptoms. The patient's own stem cells were used for the treatment, preventing problems of immune rejection, and avoiding tumor formation. If only that sort of research had been available for my 13-year-old grandson, who died with epilepsy on 27 May this year. We have all experienced at some time the sadness and the frustrations of not having the means to cure illnesses such as that. The report goes on to say:These are all current treatments for real patients, not hoped-for possibilities that might appear in 20 years. Beyond the profound ethical problems posed by embryo research, the scientific evidence in favor of the alternatives is compelling.Finally, in the last paragraph of that briefing paper, Professor Prentice says:In the debate over embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells, it's a contrast of promises versus treatments, dead mice versus live patients.Let me say that one of the things I believe passionately in is the issue of morals, ethics and truth. When I read the article in the Australian today headed `Stem-cell rat trick angers MPs' by Dennis Shanahan, I was absolutely horrified. To illustrate the point, I will read the article. It reads:The leading proponent of embryonic stem-cell research has admitted his “trump card video” showing a crippled rat walking, which was used in trying to win over politicians, was not demonstrating a success from the kind of embryos covered in the bill before parliament.Alan Trounson and his colleagues said last night that the rat's cure had not come from the five-day-old fertilised eggs that will be made available under the embryonic stem-cell research bill, but from “germ cells” from five-to nine-week-old aborted fetuses.Some MPs and senators were angry last night—and I can tell you I was one of them—that they were misled by the US example, which was not relevant to the Australian legislation.In an attempt to win support from federal MPs, Professor Trounson told them last week that human embryonic stem cells had been injected into crippled rats in the US and “the animals walked again and had control of bowel and bladder function”.I do not think I need to make any more comment about that particular article or about Professor Trounson, except to say this: where are the morals and ethics in this profession? Where are the morals and ethics in this deceit that he promulgated to this parliament? Can his actions be construed as scientific fraud? My view is that they can be.I would like to take this opportunity to remind my parliamentary colleagues about the reasons for the introduction of the IVF program, which was in itself an issue of controversy in the community at the time. The in-vitro fertilisation program was introduced to allow infertile couples—that is, a man and a woman—the opportunity to experience the joy of having a child via the generosity of fertile sperm donated by an anonymous, sometimes sympathetic and certainly compassionate human being. Since that time, in the politically correct environment forced upon the mainstream community, we have seen attempts to abuse and exploit this program which has successfully delivered children to couples in need.Never in our wildest dreams—or nightmares, depending on your point of view—did we imagine that scientists would then attempt to not only hijack embryos from this program but extract stem cells from them in the full knowledge that the human embryo would be destroyed. The beautiful picture of infertile couples bearing children that sometimes required a number of IVF attempts to succeed has never included any promotion of the embryos left behind. The storage of excess human embryos was to preserve the principle of the value and dignity of each individual life and the principle that such embryos were not commodities. It is both ironic and tragically sad to see this parliament now contemplating the experimentation on the very same class of embryos against principles of value and dignity. The embryos in question are humans in an early stage of development, just as all human beings have been. They are in every sense of definition the same as every other human embryo. When they cannot be used in an IVF procedure then it is only appropriate for them to be allowed to die with dignity and not to be subjected to experimentation. To allow use of embryos in the way being contemplated is to cross a line concerning the value and dignity of individual human life that must not be crossed.In contrast, other sources of stem cells for research are very real—for example, placental cord and adult stem cells. Adult stem cells can be sourced from almost every major organ in the patient's own body as well as from bone marrow, skin and fat. A research facility in Melbourne recently found a technique which could help in obtaining stem cells from the human brain, giving hope for sufferers of Parkinson's disease and other neurological conditions. Adult stem cell research does not destroy embryos, does not rely on cloning and, because adult stem cells are taken from the patient's own body and not from someone else's, there is no tissue rejection, as distinct from embryonic stem cells, which have a problem with tissue rejection. I am not going to go into the concerns I have about the way I believe the multibillion dollar biotech industry has manipulated the debate on this ethical issue, because I do not have time. They would reap significant financial benefits from access to embryonic stem cell research. That is another matter related to this debate which could take considerable time.I am more interested in saying what I referred to at the commencement of my contribution to this debate—that is, I cannot support embryonic stem cell research. The majority of my constituents who have phoned, emailed and written to me on this subject do not support it. Two hundred and thirty-one are against it; 19 are for it. As their elected representative, I will be exercising not only my own conscience vote but voting on behalf of a majority of my constituents who, like me, believe it is ethically and morally wrong and indefensible to consider taking the life of a defenceless human embryo under the guise of questionable ethical research and, as we have learned in the last 24 hours, deceitful ethics that should be condemned throughout this country.16:45:005843Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I am pleased to be able to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, as community interest in the issue of research involving human embryos and human cloning is particularly high. The first thing I wish to do is sincerely thank all those who have written to me or phoned me about this bill. I have been impressed with the conviction that members in my community have expressed on this debate and I respect and understand the feelings and concerns they raise. I ask in turn that they respect the stance I will take on this bill and appreciate that I did not reach the decision lightly or easily. My test has been: can I sleep at night with the decision I have made? To be truthful, I have had many sleepless nights weighing up the decision before me. I also want to thank and congratulate every Australian who has contacted their MP to tell them of their personal views. A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 4.46 p.m. to 5.04 p.m.83SBurke, Anna, MPMs BURKE—This debate, informed by local communities, and the conscience vote that all members of this House will exercise are the essence of a true democracy. I believe all members have gone through general soul-searching about the nature of our responsibilities. Are we sent to this place as representatives whose responsibility it is to act on behalf of our constituents or are we sent here as delegates of the thousands who live in the community we represent? Are we, as representatives, to exercise the collective conscience of our constituents or are we to exercise our own conscience? I think the 18th century British conservative politician and political thinker Edmund Burke summed it up nicely in his speech in 1774:You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.None of us in this House are able to accurately determine the collective conscience of our community. Indeed, if we could, I doubt we would find a consensus view from the community. In the community of Chisholm, I doubt I would find a consensus view. My constituents are as diverse in their opinions as the members of the House are. So we are each in the position of exercising our own conscience on this serious matter.I have personally found this a troubling and weighty task. I wish I were—like many on both sides of this debate—certain in my convictions, but I find I can see both reasons for supporting this bill and reasons for rejecting this bill. As members of Australia's parliament, we are charged with determining this profound moral issue for the entire Australian community. Today I will be exercising my best judgment. I wish the Australian community could see the efforts that all members have gone to in determining their position on this bill. Unhelpful caricatures like Catholic ciphers doing the bidding of the Pope, the rage against Catholicism, mad scientists itching to play God with human life and Frankenstein-style scientists have occasionally been heard in the community and only rarely alluded to in this House. I do not believe they have been helpful. On the whole, I have found that the debate so far has been insightful and informative and that, in general, it has reflected well upon all members of this place.Issues such as the undertaking of research involving human embryos engender passion in the community; that passion is justified. These are weighty issues that involve very fundamental assessments of human life and the potential benefits of scientific research. Advocates both for and against research involving embryos have put forward persuasive cases. In essence, the debate is a relatively simple one: a weighing up of the competing moral imperatives of researching with the aim of providing a better quality of life for those with many horrible diseases, illnesses and disabilities, and preserving human life. I intend to thrash out these competing arguments in the course of this debate to outline my reasoning process on this bill.There is no support in this parliament—or, indeed, in the wider community—for human cloning. I abhor the idea that the cloning of humans may be carried out anywhere. The cloning of any human for any purpose is morally repugnant to me. Therefore, I support the provision within this bill that prohibits human cloning. I will largely confine my comments to issues of research involving embryos. The primary discussion around this bill is on its regulation of research involving the use of human embryonic stem cells. Research involving the use of embryos is a significantly more difficult question. In a debate such as this, it is impossible to separate facts from personal views, but we should try to remain rational in our thought processes. First, let us be clear on what this debate is not about. This bill is about the use of embryos in the development of therapeutic cures; it is not, and ought not to be, about the legislation of hope. This bill cannot manufacture hope. Whilst we are all sympathetic to those who suffer and dearly want cures for debilitating diseases, this bill cannot and should not manufacture hope. Debate about this bill should not be a proxy vehicle for debate about the merits of assisted reproduction technologies, or IVF—that debate was concluded in the affirmative a long time ago. Debate on this bill should not be a proxy vehicle for debate about the rightness or wrongness of abortion, nor about the status of the foetus or, in this case, the embryo. That is not what this debate is about. Let us be absolutely clear. The question is: should we make embryos from Australia's IVF program available for scientific research into stem cells? What are the arguments?I am very proud to have one of Australia's most informative and productive research precincts within my electorate. Monash University and Monash Hospital are two important research institutions; indeed, the Centre for Stem Cells and Tissue Repair is located within Monash University in the biotechnical strip in my electorate of Chisholm. The value of Monash to stem cell research was recognised by this government when it was chosen from an outstanding field to receive funding of $43.55 million over the next four years. However, the fact that the research is potentially lucrative is not a persuasive argument to undertake. Many activities are lucrative, but that does not mean we ought to undertake them.Some argue that to pass this bill is to irretrievably slide down a slippery slope towards some sort of Nazi nightmare of genocide and exploitation. Setting the inflammatory rhetoric aside, this argument is intellectually sloppy and was debunked by credible moral philosophers a long time ago. Others argue that embryonic stem cell research will lead to a wasted scientific effort—that greater scientific gains can be gained through research on adult stem cells. The reasoning behind this argument is that there have been no clinically applied gains through research on embryonic stem cells, while there have been demonstrated benefits through adult stem cell research.This is an argument I do not accept. I am sceptical of any argument that says that, because there have not yet been any gains in an area of research, research of that nature should be legislatively precluded. Research into adult stem cells has been conducted for decades. Research into embryonic stem cell lines has only been possible in the last few years. In scientific research, we do not know what is just around the corner. Arthur C. Clarke has illustrated this in his approach. Clarke's first law states:When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.I do not see any basis for this House to enact legislation based upon layman's guesswork about the merits or otherwise of future research. The true value of research can only be determined after that research has been conducted. I do not believe it is our role to make the determination on the comparative value of research, nor are we equipped in this House to do so. This is a determination that needs to be made by scientists. The nature of scientific research is that things are tried. New approaches are attempted. To quote Clarke again from his second law: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. In my view, the passage of the bill currently before the House can only be determined on the moral question of the propriety of such research, not its potential value. The use of embryos that are surplus following IVF procedures is quite rightly a prospect that concerns many in our community. Embryonic stem cell research is an inherently moral issue. Parliament has a legitimate role in determining what acts ought to be prohibited by a society.There are varying views in the community and in this parliament regarding the beginning of life, but what there is no contention about is that embryos, in the right environment, have the potential to grow into a unique human adult. That makes each embryo a very precious thing. As such, any actions that we as a parliament and, more importantly, as a community take in relation to the issues that involve embryos are difficult moral questions. Who would decide the fate of surplus IVF embryos? The bill is emphatic in its position that the person for whom the embryos were created—that is, the parents—must give consent for those embryos to be used for any purpose other than assisted reproduction.The decision before me is whether those embryos, which are surplus to the IVF program and by law must be destroyed, for which consent has been given to use them for other purposes should be made available for scientific research. I believe we need to look not only morally but also clearly and sceptically at this debate, including claims of impending miracle medical breakthroughs. I find it confounding that many who wish to wholeheartedly support the bill on the basis of hope for medical breakthroughs do not have concern for those in our community who can have help now with targeted funding and programs. The member for Fremantle made a compelling point on this in her speech. One example is vaccination. This government actually has a good record on vaccination. According to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, nearly 30 million of the 130 million children born every year are not receiving basic immunisation. The great majority, 28 million, live in developing countries. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation has calculated that, based on current assumptions of vaccine delivery costs, an additional $US226 million annually is needed to reach at least 80 per cent coverage in the poorest countries with the traditional EPI vaccines—that is, measles, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus. To cover the same number of children with the newer vaccines, according to the alliance, would require an additional $US352 million.The alliance has also calculated the per capita costs. It estimates that the total cost of a national immunisation program—including allowance for shared costs, such as health workers who combine immunisation work with other duties, and the depreciation of capital equipment—translates to an average two to five per cent of government health spending or roughly $US0.20 to $US0.60 per capita for most countries. This comes to roughly 0.03 to 0.10 per cent of the gross national product, though the cost for the basic EPI group has been estimated at no more than 0.01 per cent of GDP for all but the poorest countries. So diddly-squat would actually go into immunising the world. My argument—it is a long bow—is that we have spent a hell of a lot of time agonising over this bill and its future hope for diseases, but we could do a great deal with not a lot of money which would actually have benefits now for not only ourselves but people in those poorest countries.While I have already expressed the view that the slippery slope argument is bogus, in another sense we have already taken the leap. As usual, science is ahead of legislation: stem cells imported from overseas are currently being used for research in Australia today. This bill is silent on that issue. Regardless of the fate of this bill, research on imported embryonic stem cells will continue unabated. Many states have indicated that they will pass their own legislation to permit research into embryonic stem cells if no national direction is adopted. We need uniform legislation that will protect the fate of the excess IVF embryos. As you can probably tell from my speech, I have waxed and waned and I really have weighed it up very heavily. As I said at the outset, I can see merits in both supporting and opposing the bill. Ultimately, I will be exceptionally uneasy about whatever I do. I have found making a decision to be profoundly troubling. In the end I am going to support the legislation but I will not do it with an easy heart. I know many will be disappointed with me, including my family, but I have to make that decision on my own.17:15:005847Dutton, Peter, MPMr DUTTON00AKIDicksonLP10—I congratulate the honourable member for Chisholm on her very moving speech. When the Prime Minister first spoke on this bill, the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, he discussed the obvious complexity of the debate and the difficulties he had after taking considerable advice from experts and noting the views of scientific and medical experts as well as religious leaders. I must say that I faced a similar process in arriving at my decision to support the Prime Minister's bill today. For me the process has been difficult for a number of reasons. I have sought and received advice from professors, scientists and people with committed religious beliefs. Most importantly, I have consulted with many constituents in the electorate of Dickson. My thought process has also included a natural influence from, and consideration of, my own religious beliefs, having been christened in the Catholic Church but raised through an Anglican school. I consider myself to be a person of Christian faith, but I consider it is that belief, that faith, which has ultimately influenced my decision to support this bill. I could not have supported the bill had it been about the commercial harvesting of embryonic stem cells. I believe the majority of Australians would have shared the same opinion had that been the case. But that is not what this bill is about.Nonetheless, the implications of this legislation are clearly profound, and for this reason alone I have taken a considered stance, having been a participant in a number of briefings from experts and having read papers extensively, all in an effort to reach this informed decision. It is not only a decision that I feel is correct on balance but, more importantly, it is a decision that I believed would be taken by the majority of people in Dickson—and, in fact, by the majority of Australians—if they were to be here in my position in this parliament today. I am in this parliament only through the support of the people of Dickson, and I respect and consider their views immensely.Part of the reason that I was first attracted to becoming a member of parliament was that I was one of an ever-increasing number of middle-of-the-road Australians that were not being heard. We expressed views on issues that were just not reflected in the words spoken by a number of our elected representatives and certainly not by an out of touch media. If commentators are looking for reasons as to why the swinging voter numbers are swelling, they need to look no further than that simple message. People in Australia, people like those in Dickson, want their elected representatives to hear what they are saying and, more importantly, to act upon what they are saying. They do not mind advice and guidance but what they really detest is an argument being advanced by people elected to represent them that is telling them they are wrong and incapable of making up their own minds. Only a handful of people from the Dickson electorate contacted me regarding this debate, and I must say the majority were opposed to the legislation and strongly urged me to vote against it. I value their opinions and thank them for expressing them. The points they made were valid, and a big part of the dilemma in this situation is that there are no rights and wrongs. However, because we have a population across the electorate in excess of 120,000, I undertook to discuss the issue with as many constituents as possible during the term of this debate and I sought their opinions on this emotive topic. I must say that the majority of those—middle-of-the-road locals who rarely if ever have reason to come into contact with their federal member of parliament—supported the Prime Minister's stance on this bill. I believe that in our healthy democracy it is my duty to the people of Dickson to represent their views, and I firmly believe that the majority support this bill. They support medical research of an ethical nature. A conscience vote is not just about Peter Dutton's view; it is about the view of—and a vote for—the people of Dickson. As the member for Dickson, I have sought to deliver that vote on behalf of the majority of the constituents I represent.I have attended briefing processes with professors and doctors both in favour of and in opposition to this bill. Some of the debate has clearly been flavoured by their individual religious and/or commercial views. I must say that this was frustrating in many ways because, in becoming informed about this debate, what I sought from the so-called experts was expert analysis: a concise explanation of the facts. In particular I wanted to know if adult stem cells could do the work of embryo cells: if it was necessary to have to use the embryonic stem cells at all? I was quite happy to receive views from those with a religious view or in fact from those with a commercial basis for support, although I must say it was with a lower tolerance for those with the latter cause. But when you receive expert evidence that is clearly tainted one way or the other or that is a deliberate attempt to pervert the facts for individual gain or belief, that is both unprofessional and deceptive. Frankly, those motivated in such a way were seen through in this debate and did their cause more harm than good. In the end, the clear and unambiguous evidence was that embryonic stem cells could provide hope for children with diseases where adult stem cells could not.One of the considerable arguments against this bill has been that it involves the destruction of human life. Many, including those who have directly benefited from the IVF program, even argue that IVF is a process of creating life, not destroying it. In my opinion, this is a subjective question and it depends on one's individual views as to when life is created. I respect that there is a differing view on this aspect of this debate and that there always will be. For me, and I believe for many people, the obvious fact is that IVF is a process which both creates life and, by its very nature, destroys life. At the moment it destroys life by creating excess embryonic cells that are disposed of by a process of thawing and ultimately by essentially throwing the embryonic cells in the bin.If this is the case, as I am informed it is, then a true dilemma is created for me. I do not accept the argument that this bill will allow for `murder', as some have put it, at the same time conveniently neglecting to mention the process of disposal as it currently exists. Those who would argue that line, in my opinion, really should be arguing for the abolition of the IVF program, which is now responsible for two in every 100 babies born. I know many people who have taken part in the IVF program, including practising Catholics. The children that have been created would only have been possible through that program, and I would never support its abolition. The real debate here is: are we going to deal with excess embryos by way of exposure to chemicals and sunlight or allow them to be used for medical research, which will provide hope to children born years from now with genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy?As I said, I started with no defined position in this debate, and therefore the decision making process was never an easy one. On reflection though, perhaps one of the deciding points for me was in a briefing given by Professor Bob Williamson, who is the Director of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, Professor of Medical Genetics at the University of Melbourne and President of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes. Professor Williamson provided decisive and unbiased scientific evidence that I found to be most useful. I consulted with Professor Williamson subsequent to his presentation, so that I could clarify his advice, and in part he told me:There are over 1,000 genetic diseases that have been identified in patients in the Royal Children's Hospital, and these include diseases affecting many different tissues and cell types. It is not possible to know with certainty which types of stem cells are going to provide most hope, but from our knowledge of each disease we can make some predictions. The genetic conditions we see include familial diseases of the liver (such as haemophilia and phenylketonuria), for which I would predict adult stem cells will provide the solution, because the liver is “a bag of cells” and the liver is an easy tissue into which to introduce cells that have been altered by the addition of a DNA sequence. However, some children suffer from genetic mutations that cause cancer, and in these cases adult stem cells will not (in my view) work well, because all of the adult cells will have the predisposing mutation. In a case such as this, it would be preferable to use a matched (but not identical, because we would not want the mutation) cell from an embryo. There are, in the hundreds of diseases we see, many examples of both types of disease. However, I would reiterate that as of now we cannot predict with certainty how well embryo or adult stem cells will “take” as therapy.Professor Williamson goes on to say:There is one other key point that I think needs to be emphasised. Even for the diseases where adult stem cells are best (and there are many), we need to learn how to grow a large number of adult cells in culture and to make sure they can grow in the body of the recipient without hazard. Our research here at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute is almost all on adult stem cells, but we need to learn from the embryonic stem cells how to get rapid and safe cell multiplication. That is why I am committed to seeing the two lines of research proceed in parallel.When I look at my five-and-a-half-month-old daughter Rebecca and think how blessed I am that she is beautiful and healthy, it delivers an understanding that, although embryonic stem cell research will not deliver benefits to parents of sick children today, tomorrow or, I think, even five years from now, I am certain it will be part of the hope provided by the time my grandchildren come into the world. There is nothing worse than to see a child struck down by serious illness. If the research that results from this process provides a cure for other children less fortunate than my daughter, we must support it. Like any father, I would give my life for my little girl, and I owe it to the mums and dads and Australians of both this generation and the next to support this bill. Australians have always supported medical research on ethical grounds. I have said on many occasions that we live in the luckiest country in the world, and we owe much of our living standard to the first-class talents of many researchers, doctors and scientists over generations since Federation. They have provided medical breakthroughs that are often taken for granted. The researchers in this field currently have one hand tied behind their back. I say this because adult stem cells provide only one half of the puzzle and embryonic stem cells provide the other. If we do not allow this bill to proceed into law, we are doing a disservice to the future of the greatest country on earth.17:28:005849Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—With the indulgence of the chamber, I preface my comments by stating my very sincere disappointment that I am rising in this chamber and not the main chamber downstairs. I thought this chamber was held for non-contentious issues, and I think this is one of the most contentious issues that has come along in some time. I am very sorry to think that it has been relegated to this chamber.Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is a mouthful. It is a very long title, but fittingly so, because it represents a very long and very detailed debate over many years. Despite the difficulty that this particular bill presents for many of us, I believe we are incredibly privileged to be members of this place at the time that this debate is taking place. The purpose of the bill is to ban human cloning and other unacceptable practices, and to regulate the use of excess human embryos created by assisted reproductive technology—ART.The bill is designed to be part of a national scheme which will include complementary state and territory laws. Over the period of the debate so far and in the time that I have either read some of it or listened to some of it, it is fair to say that very strong moral argument and equally strong scientific argument have been put forward and that there has been a great deal of emotion. I would not for one moment begin to disagree with the right to put all those particular aspects forward. I think I am in a fairly lucky position in a way because I do not personally have the moral dilemma that many of my colleagues have. I respect them and have regard for them in the position that they are in, but I am not in that same position.The possibilities that the science offers with the progress of this bill are so enormous that I could not take any other position than a position to support the bill. Some people argue that adult stem cells will do; that could be true, but it may not be. I say to them, `What if you are wrong? What if the potential is there and, through the vote of people in this House, we actually do not realise the potential that is there?' I think that that would be an enormous opportunity that would be lost. I remember—and I am sure other members who have been here long enough will as well—the emotion and the difficulty that surrounded the last very big moral issue that we faced in this House, the euthanasia debate. In that debate—and again I say this sincerely with the greatest of respect to those people who do have moral questions to answer in relation to this—I understood the moral issues more because it was far easier to identify with a human being, as I see it, than with what we are dealing with in this debate. I know that many people will disagree with me when I say that, but that is my view. There is no doubt that there are huge difficulties surrounding the process of this particular bill. There is no doubt that some people will, rightfully for them, vote against it, and I would never take it upon myself to criticise them for that. I have to say, however, that I have not particularly appreciated some of the more extreme arguments that have been put up in the debate by some members against this bill. The reference to Nazi Germany, to murder and so on has not been appreciated at all, and I believe that those sorts of comments have not added to the process that people need to go through to come to an answer, if they are still doing that, in relation to how they are going to vote. This is obviously not an easy process, and I would like to think that we could approach this sort of debate without resorting to that level of discussion. I do not think it adds anything. What I do believe adds to the debate is when a person stands up and, according to their own basic moral belief, says that they have a problem with it for whatever those moral beliefs are. For those others of us who do not have that problem, we must just stick to the facts as we can best understand them. There have been many contributions by members where we have had academics, professors, medical people and scientists quoted. I am not doing that today—I have left that to others. I just believe in my heart that, if this is a gift that has come along to us from wherever, as a potential for wonderful new breakthroughs in science which will lead, hopefully, to the eradication in some cases and the treatment in others of things like diabetes, spinal injuries, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy—the list is endless—then I for one have decided that I will not be standing in the way.To the constituents who have contacted me, I thank them. I regard their opinions very sincerely. As with the previous speaker, I too have not been inundated with approaches. There have been a few, but not a lot. The majority of the few that have come have put the view that they are against the legislation. I have read every one of them very carefully and I have weighed their opinions up very carefully but, like the previous speaker, I have also done my straw poll, for want of a better term, around my community and I feel fairly confident that, in the way that I am going to vote on this bill, I am reflecting at large the majority view within my own community. The measure for me is when you hear the opinion from people who you would expect to have the moral dilemmas—from people who are coming at you from a religious perspective but have still found it in their hearts to say to me, `But we think it should happen, too.' This just illustrates the difficulty—and every member, I am sure, has been through this—in coming to some conclusion in relation to this debate.For myself, I am feeling confident that I am doing the right thing by the best process that I have been able to put myself through. I will be supporting the bill. I hope, as all proponents of the bill hope, that we can look forward to the scientific gain that it promises and not be too disappointed if it brings only part of it. Any scientific gain that will address any of the issues that we believe it has a chance to do will be a gain, in my book.I want to thank the people in my community who have gone to the trouble of giving me their views. I want to thank the colleagues with whom I have had discussions over this, and I want to thank the people within this House who have put things like the Bills Digest and so on together to try to give us the best possible information that we can have in reaching the conclusions that we will reach. I conclude by repeating my support for the bill, and expressing the hope that we will eventually see its successful carriage through both chambers.17:35:005851Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I rise to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Like all the speakers before me, it has been a most difficult exercise for me to come to a position, and it is one that I have agonised over. Conscience votes, or free votes, as some would like to refer to them, come by all too infrequently in our political lives. As a federal member of parliament, I have now had the privilege of exercising my free vote on two occasions, the first in 1996 on euthanasia and now in 2002 on this bill. I very well appreciate the comments made by the member for Canberra about the difference in weighing up the cause on these two occasions.The bill seeks to prohibit and tightly regulate a number of practices associated with reproductive technologies and certain embryos created through assisted reproductive technology, better known as the IVF program. The bill outlines that creating a human embryo clone by any means is an offence with a penalty of 15 years imprisonment or a fine of $495,000 for an organisation. Furthermore, it is an offence to develop a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days, excluding any period that the embryo is frozen.The period of 14 days leads to an interesting area of debate. Embryonic stem cells are commonly defined as those derived from an embryo less than six weeks old. The development stage of a stem cell lasts eight weeks. The embryonic stem cells we are considering in this bill are those less than 14 days old, and they are classified as early embryonic stem cells. During the first 14 days, the cells have the ability to split and reconstitute. However, prior to this point, the embryonic stem cells are merely a collection of cells with the ability to differentiate. To make the entire process ultimately accountable, this bill provides for the National Health and Medical Research Council and its licensing committee to report to parliament, thereby making it ultimately accountable to the Australian people. By way of a simple explanation, embryonic stem cells come from embryos less than six weeks old. Stem cells form from blastocysts in the first two weeks following fertilisation. Stem cells are present in some adult tissues; namely, the brain, spinal cord and bone marrow. We have already seen a number of conservative nations around the world that either have allowed, or have no legislative impediments to, embryonic stem cell research. Some of these nations are very much in the conservative field—countries such as Israel, Italy, the United Kingdom, Greece and France. One therefore gets the feeling that research into embryonic stem cells is inevitable. The very nature of this issue leads me to believe that in the not too distant future we will be back here again. Scientific and technological advances are occurring at a rate of knots that even the most educated, progressive and liberal of states is finding difficulty in keeping pace with. Whatever we decide on this bill, we will be back to debate the next challenge that science throws up at us.I foresee that even the issue of cloning for therapeutic research will make its way back into the public debate. We cannot foresee what will present itself or prevent it from coming before us, but what we can do is deal with what we know and understand today. It is for this reason that I find the arguments based on the thin end of the wedge or the slippery slope difficult to accept with this bill. We cannot legislate today for what may happen in the future in this rapidly evolving technology.Some have argued the need to invest in our own scientific research to keep pace with trends overseas. I for one am not swayed by this argument. There is much that we could do to keep the brightest minds in this country, be it in medicine, computing, astronomy or even in the commercial sphere, but we do not legislate to do so. We will always lose some of our brightest and best to overseas markets. It is called competition, and Australia is lacking the economies of scale to retain these people. Accepting this, I am therefore once again faced with this question: why should I support this legislation?Like many in this House of strong Christian background, I have agonised over my position. I have recalled images of one of my cousins dying of a degenerative disease. I have recalled images of my very best friend dying, only a matter of weeks before my wedding 15 years ago, of an incurable illness. I have also recalled the countless letters that I have received from constituents with heartfelt stories of their dying children. It is difficult even for us supposedly hard-nosed politicians not to break down when confronted by these images.The difficulty of this debate for all of us, whether we are legislators or members of the public, is to understand the science behind the issue and the veracity of the arguments from both sides. Central to my consideration has been the vested interest and personal ethics of those making their claims. Just as some may be critical of arguments solely based on Christian morality, I have been very sceptical of claims by some scientists that they have no vested personal interest in the outcome. Financially this may be the case, but the bigger reward for scientists is the intellectual property, the notoriety on the world stage and the increased taxpayer based medical research funding. For these scientists to say otherwise is to treat us as single-cell intellects, and we have seen in the last 24 hours some of these scientists in fact taking that very position with us members of parliament and legislators.To my mind, the two most compelling researchers have been Dr Catherine Verfaillie from the University of Minnesota and Professor Bob Williamson, director of Murdoch Children's Research Institute at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. Both researchers are among a growing number of adult stem cell researchers who have called for embryonic stem cell research to be allowed to proceed. Their call is based on a belief that breakthroughs in adult stem cell research can only take place by understanding embryonic stem cells. To the great number of us who are scientific lightweights, this can at first appear to be a confusing argument. Professor Catherine Verfaillie's recent advances using adult stem cells have been held by some as a reason why embryos should not be used. Her research demonstrates the potential of adult stem cells to be the cure for all degenerative diseases. Yet Professor Verfaillie has called for complementary research on embryonic stem cells.Professor Williamson, who works purely with adult stem cells, has supported the call. He has clearly identified the advantages of both lines of stem cell research. He has also made the observation that stem cells are an enabling technology, not the final unitary treatment. It is a platform that can launch many medical treatments, with the emphasis on treatment rather than on the exaggerated claim of cures. If I can quote Professor Williamson:It cannot be emphasised too much that at present we do not know which types of cells will be best therapy for which diseases. It also cannot be over-emphasised that research using embryo and adult stem cells is best done side by side, so we can learn from the embryo cells how to make adult stem cells grow rapidly and robustly, and give any tissue. This Bill is a compromise ... If it is not passed, we will require our medical researchers to try to run on one leg. To me, this is one of the key arguments in the debate.While the science for embryonic stem cell research is quite clear, what is not so clear are the ethical and moral arguments, particularly as the role of the IVF program must be brought into question. Any ethical argument to ban embryonic stem cell research must also call for a ban on the IVF program. It must also call for a ban on the importation of any stem cells derived from an embryo. It must also call for a ban on any ensuing medical treatment derived from such overseas research. A ban on any of these three in the modern day is an untenable proposition. I doubt that anyone in the community with a child suffering from leukaemia, cystic fibrosis or any other degenerative disease would turn their back on medical breakthroughs that may give their child a hope for a normal life, no matter where that treatment may have been sourced.Importantly, embryonic stem cell research is currently taking place in Australia. Opposing this bill does not ban such research continuing. If we abdicate responsibility for setting national guidelines, as proposed by the Prime Minister, I fear that we will have six separate state jurisdictions passing their own legislation with varying degrees of control. Researchers will go forum shopping for the laws most favourable for their research. I do not trust the states to pass uniform legislation. As members of the national parliament, the public expects us to place acceptable controls while at the same time allowing hope to flourish.To me, acceptance of the IVF program as a mainstream medical treatment giving hope to thousands of couples has been one of the most compelling of all arguments. Let us consider some of the known facts about the IVF program. Firstly, over 700 embryonic stem cells were destroyed for the Monash Medical Centre last year alone. Secondly, the creation of surplus embryos for research purposes is not allowed in this bill. The creation of surplus embryos for IVF purposes is allowed. Thirdly, the destruction of excess embryos currently takes place and will continue to occur. Let me place on record what happens to those embryos after being in storage. In Victoria the law says they must be destroyed after five years. How does that destruction occur? The embryos are taken out of their deep-freeze state to thaw out while sitting on a laboratory bench. The thawing converts the nitrogen chemical mix to a poisonous toxin that destroys the embryos. The embryos are then thrown into the bin. Where is there dignity in that process? I accept that the frozen embryo is part of the process towards the creation of human life. Prior to the IVF program, when life could only occur by inseminating an egg in the womb, we all accepted that life began at conception. The IVF program has proven that, while insemination and storage can occur outside of the womb, life can only take place if the egg takes hold in the womb. For any greater proof, let us look at the fact that it takes excess embryos to ensure that an egg will take hold. Life takes place in the womb. The egg, the sperm, the insemination, the womb are all an integral part of the process. Without just one of these, life cannot exist. No embryo can live outside the womb for more than six days. No technology exists anywhere in the world whereby life can take place outside the womb. If it ever does exist— and I doubt it ever will—then I and other legislators will be back here, I am sure, taking action in this place.Briefly I want to address the issue that has given me the greatest anguish and many sleepless nights—the fundamental Christian doctrine on the beginning of life. It has been, until recently, the most insurmountable of all barriers to overcome. My position on embryonic stem cells may disappoint those who have had a hand in my Christian education, and I plead with them to understand my anguish and note that this does not signal a reversal on all other issues and that each issue will be judged accordingly. To understand the arguments put forward by my very respected and strong Christian community in Deakin, I have also searched the Bible for guidance. But all I have found are competing verses. This in itself of course would not have been the final arbiter of my decision. At the end of the day I was not elected to be the moral guardian for our society. I can only look at what powers I have to help those in the community to have a better way of life, to have a chance at life. When the DNA dice rolls out, has it been loaded in favour of some over others? Is it not my responsibility, my duty, to ensure that a loaded dice rolls out as humanely as possible?To those in the medical research fraternity who may take delight in my position, I say to them: it is very much situational. I fully appreciate that these same scientists may in the near future ask this parliament to extend the medical line in the sand. I say to them: do not take my position or that of many of my likeminded colleagues for granted.I will be supporting the splitting of the bill. It is important to allow my colleagues who oppose the stem cell part of the bill to vote against the indisputable objection to human cloning. They should have the right to express their position on this insidious aspect of medical research. At the end of the day I cannot in all good conscience look a grieving constituent in the eye and say to that person: `I am sorry, but I voted against giving your child hope for recovery.' After much deliberation and concern, I will be supporting this bill in the House. 17:50:005854Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I begin my contribution by expressing my great disappointment and, indeed, my anger, as so many others have done, about the fact that this debate has been moved to the Main Committee—a chamber that was established to deal with non-contentious issues and matters before the House that basically have bipartisan support of the parties; it is not a place to bring a very serious matter such as this.The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 seeks to ban human cloning and to regulate the use of excess embryos created by IVF processes and procedures. Not surprisingly, I support the bill. I begin by focusing on the phrase `regulating the use of IVF embryos' because I believe that phrase is critical to a proper understanding and appreciation of what the bill seeks to achieve. In doing so, I set aside the question of human cloning because I am not aware that there is a member of this House who supports that proposition. We all agree, as I understand it, that that is an unacceptable proposition. More importantly, this is a bill which seeks to regulate the use of existing embryos—not to create embryos but to regulate their use—and to put in place a national uniform framework for dealing with these very important issues, a framework that would regulate those uses.Many earlier speakers have put on record their respect for those who hold different views to their own, and I also want to put on record my respect for those who do not agree with me. There are no wrongs or rights with respect to this issue, only different views. Many have also said that they want to reassure the Australian community that, during their deliberation on this issue, they had made every effort to apprise themselves fully of the technical issues. I heard the previous speaker, the member for Deakin, concede that he is no expert on these matters. I, too, find myself in that position. But I have done my very best—as I am sure all members of the parliament have—to ensure that I understand fully the issues that are before the House today.I do differ from many other members who have said that this has been a difficult issue for them, because it has not been a very difficult issue for me. A debate about whether we should be creating surplus embryos in the first place may have been a more difficult issue for me, but that was a debate we had 20 years ago—a debate that, no doubt, was raised in this place long before my election to this place. Since then, the support for the IVF program amongst the Australian community has risen from around 77 per cent to 86 per cent. It is also worth noting that now only 10 per cent of Australians disapprove of IVF programs. For me, the immediate question is a fairly easy one. I am a Catholic and, of course, the Catholic Church has been a leader in the campaign in opposition to the bill. The last time I was granted a conscience vote in this place was with respect to the Andrews's bill—the private member's bill—that was on the question of euthanasia. On that occasion, I sided with my church, but I probably did not side with my church for all the reasons they would like to think I sided with them. I sided with my church because those who were promoting euthanasia as an option for those in insufferable pain said it was an option and that it should be an option. I opposed that proposition because, while they said it was about giving people a choice, my great concern was that there would be no choice and that, once this place sanctioned or mandated the opportunity to take one's own life, people would find themselves almost obligated in certain circumstances to take that option—possibly in circumstances in which they felt that they had been too great a burden on their families. In some cases, it may be for more sinister reasons, which I do not think I need to delve into this evening.But this time it is a choice for me. I have to decide whether all those embryos created prior to April 2002 should be used for research which will assist many Australians, both young and old. Many other people in this place have given numerous examples of people in their own constituencies and people who are national and even international identities who could benefit from the research. My choice is whether to use those embryos for that purpose or to simply trash them. On this occasion, I will certainly give my full-hearted support to using them for those very good purposes.My decision has been made an easy one by the Prime Minister's very astute decision to restrict that research to embryos which existed at the time of his decision. That gives us all breathing space in which to contemplate the future and to better understand where technology is taking us in the future. It has also been made easier by the way in which the Prime Minister has structured the expert committee which will deal with the regulation of these issues and the technical matters that will arise.So I repeat: it is not a difficult decision for me at all. I am the father of young children; I have seen many children with great difficulties, whether they be from diseases or the result of accidents, and I have seen many older people with diseases like Alzheimer's, which I know are very difficult for them. So it seems to me quite an obvious choice to say that if we are going to have excess embryos we should be using them for a good purpose and not simply sending them off to the waste bin where they can be of no assistance to anyone at all. 17:57:005855Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Before I speak on this very important bill, the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, I would like to place on the record my dismay and disgust at the behaviour and the games played last night by the Labor Party with regard to those making their speeches in the Main Committee. The successful attempt at holding up this debate did much, I am sure, to upset members from both sides of the House. It was a petulant attempt by two little men—the member for Lilley and the member for Perth—who did not get their own way and the only recourse they had was to become bullies. I hope that their constituents will be as appalled as I was at their behaviour.I rise to speak in support of the bill. However, I do so with some reservation. This is not a decision I have entered into lightly and I have drawn on my own life experiences as well as listening to the views of many people. As to be expected, the more we delve into the issue of stem cell research, the more complex it becomes and the greater the doubts we generate in our own minds.I would like to say that I am as resolved as I can be in my personal views on this issue but there is always a niggling doubt in the back of my mind. A repeated comment I have often come across is the issue of cloning. Many people believe that this is an inevitable first step to artificially replicating human beings. People are telling me that they do not believe the assurances being given to them and others are saying that it is an unavoidable and inevitable consequence. I would like to believe that here in this House we can make a difference, but at the same time I am aware that this technology continues outside of Australia and largely outside of our control. So perhaps the sense of inevitability is well justified, but that does not mean we should not at least confront the issue from a standpoint of maturity and morality.I have read the briefing papers and I understand the science of what is being done. That is far removed from the core of the issue, which I see as a conflict between moral and humanitarian values. Each one of us has a view as to what we consider to be right or wrong. Sometimes that view does not necessarily sit well with the laws of the land. We also accept that there may be conflicts between a moral view and a humanitarian one. As a government we have to confront these dilemmas, and as the local member I must ultimately vote on the issue.It was not so long ago that we confronted the ethics of euthanasia. Some people vehemently opposed the proposition yet others welcomed it with open arms. The conflict that was presented arose as a result of confronting our moral and ethical conditioning with logic and clinical objectivity. Incongruously, this moral dilemma is what sets us apart from other animals but at the same time does not prevent us from visiting the worst sort of torment on other human beings.Within my electorate of Gilmore, I have called upon the constituency to let me know not only how they want me to vote on this but also their reasons for insisting on that path. Interestingly, while many people may have made up their minds, discussion on the subject raises doubts. It is the human condition that makes us need to pigeonhole issues as quickly as possible and to move on. We all see the practical benefit of a program supporting embryonic stem cell research but at the same time there is something remaining that seems a little uncomfortable.One of the major sticking points in this debate is essentially semantic in nature. It is the word `embryonic' and the way it is used in the context of discussion on the subject. People seem to have accepted the use of human cells for research much more readily than the use of embryonic cells. In fact, over the years there has been an acceptance of quite a number of medical interventions which would previously have sat uncomfortably with prevailing attitudes. This is just part and parcel of the evolutionary process of attitude change.For my part, having a family member who I could see would benefit from research that would ease a sorrowful condition has influenced my decision, adding to those responses received from my constituents. That connection probably meant more to me than any other argument supporting or opposing the proposition. Like any mother, I feel for my children and the children of others and will do all I can to avert the suffering. On that level, it is understandable that we base our opinions on instinct but this legislation requires more than that. It requires us to look further than our own biases and to arrive at a compromise. The bill seeks to ban human cloning whilst at the same time enabling embryonic cell research to go ahead. It is my belief that there is much to be gained out of research which holds the promise of developing technology in human tissue regeneration that is not presently available.To have a mind trapped inside a body or to deny an individual's potential because the body gives out prematurely surely has to be the ultimate cruelty, particularly when there is a promise of freeing that person from their shell. I think of the many people I know or have come across that are afflicted by disease or injury and perhaps the most visible is the American actor who played the comic book hero Superman, Christopher Reeve. Ironically, Reeve played an indestructible individual but in real life fell off his horse and broke his neck, ending up a quadriplegic. Because of this Hollywood connection, many people are aware of his condition, but there are many thousands of Australians alone who do not have the benefit of such publicity who are equally worthy of consideration. Many of these live in my electorate of Gilmore. More common but less visible impairments are those that affect internal organs, where the quality of life is lessened and life itself is shortened. How would those people vote on this bill? I am sure it would be with a resounding, if not unanimous, yes. I remember the debates when the first heart transplant took place, and then a pig transplant offended sensibilities. At what point do we say, `We have gone too far in playing God'? There are blood transfusions and vaccinations and so on. The argument that we are somehow playing God by intervening in the order of things suggests that we should not allow any form of human intervention to ease human suffering. The moral and psychological questions raised by embryonic stem cell research challenge these beliefs. However, I do believe that cloning human beings is going too far and that within our present moral system it does not have a place. This is a matter for the generations of the future but certainly not for ours. I support this legislation because it promises hope to millions of people while at the same time recognising the uniqueness and the individuality of human beings, who should not be replicated.The President of the United States identified two questions that had to be posed and it is worth while repeating them:First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?As an individual with a Christian ethic, I have a deep respect for the sanctity of life and I believe that, as Christians, we have a duty to ease the suffering of humankind. If we are to hold true to that tenet then we are beholden to explore avenues as to how we can do that, which brings us back to the original, very valid first question: are the IVF embryos created in the test tube in the first place life or just a basis for the continuance of life? If we can reconcile that concept within ourselves, then the decision is an easy one. If we accept that these artificially created embryos are not life, as in the accepted sense, then this places the proposition in the same vein as the issue of organ donors. The extraction of stem cells, therefore, becomes an obvious progression. In my mind, I am reconciled with the view that greater good can flow from this and that research should be allowed. I will also be supporting the splitting of the bill. We can mourn at what might have been but we should also rejoice at what can be.18:06:005857Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise to participate in this important debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. As my party has allowed a conscience vote on this bill, I will be supporting research involving human embryos. The purpose of the legislation is to ban human cloning and other unacceptable practices associated with reproductive technology and to regulate research involving human embryos. The bill reflects the decision of the Council of Australian Governments in April this year to ban human cloning, unacceptable practices associated with reproductive technology and practices that raise safety and ethical concerns. The bill also addresses the desire of that meeting for a nationally consistent approach to regulate research involving human embryos. I am pleased that the bill outlaws any form of human cloning, both reproductive and therapeutic, and prohibits such practices from occurring in Australia. The bill makes it an offence, with a maximum prison term of 15 years, for a person to create a human embryo, clone or import a human embryo clone into Australia. I believe that this is an appropriate penalty. The bill also embraces a comprehensive regulatory system to govern the use of excess IVF embryos. Researchers and scientists proposing to undertake work on excess IVF embryos that would otherwise have been destroyed will be required to follow specific procedures and meet strict criteria. I also believe that this regulatory system is an appropriate approach that strikes the right balance between ethical considerations and embracing the possibilities of therapies and cures opened up by this particular research. The regulatory regime will cover all uses of excess IVF embryos, except for specified existing IVF clinical practice. For example, observation, transport and storage of embryos by IVF clinics will be exempt from requiring a licence. Current IVF clinical practice will continue to be regulated through existing state legislation and the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee of the Fertility Society of Australia. Importantly, research will only be allowed on excess IVF embryos that were in existence at 5 April 2002. The Council of Australian Governments established an ethics committee to report within 12 months on protocols to preclude the creation of embryos specifically for research purposes, with a view to reviewing the necessity for retaining the restriction on embryos created after 5 April 2002. It has also agreed to request the National Health and Medical Research Council to report within 12 months on the adequacy of the supply of excess IVF embryos. The bill also establishes a national licensing body within the National Health and Medical Research Council, to be known as the National Health and Medical Research Council Licensing Committee. The licensing committee, to be established in consultation with the states and territories, will be comprised of experts in a range of fields, including ethics, research and the law. The committee will also include representatives with expertise in consumer health issues as they relate to disability and disease, and experience of IVF and related services. There are strong views supporting and opposing this bill. I acknowledge that a considerable number of people from my electorate would prefer that this bill be defeated. In fact a number of my friends do not support the use of human embryos for research. I understand and I respect their views. I support the legislation because it presents an opportunity for people with serious and debilitating illnesses to work towards a cure for what has been in the past for many of them an almost impossible predicament. Stem cell research may well be the only hope for many thousands of people of all ages who suffer from these illnesses. I have listened to most of the speeches delivered over the past few days, and there have been many powerful presentations from both sides of the House and, indeed, on both sides of this debate. I was particularly impressed by the address of the Leader of the Opposition, who indicated many compelling reasons for supporting the bill, including a reference to Australia's leading role in medical research. He said:This legislation will ensure that Australian biomedical research continues to lead the world. Without it stem cell research will become another lost opportunity for Australia; more of our brilliant young scientists, technicians and ethicists will leave for overseas, making the brain drain even worse.I agree with him. We cannot afford to lose this expertise. We have seen too many of our ideas commercialised abroad. It is vital to pass this legislation because at least it provides a chance and an opportunity for those who suffer from serious illnesses to achieve a better quality of life. I was less than impressed with the diatribe fired off by the member for Warringah, who chose a ridiculous comparison with frogs and tadpoles in a feeble attempt to justify his opposition to the bill. He said:Nevertheless, I fully accept that there are some people—perhaps many people—who have trouble accepting that the embryo in a test tube, the collection of cells in a test tube, is in some way human. Let me ask them, if I may, to think of this: I believe that it is not necessary for a tadpole to be exactly a frog for those who are concerned with the welfare of frogs to nevertheless be deeply concerned about the fate of tadpoles.What a ridiculous comment to make in one of the most important debates we will see in this current parliament. What intellectual arrogance for the member for Warringah to even contemplate attempting to influence which tadpoles eventually become frogs. The member for Warringah then went on to say:It is an analogy which works for me and I would commend it to those who, for understandable reasons, have some difficulty with the concept that an embryo is human life. At the very least it seems to me that the embryo is worthy of respect. At the very least it seems to me that it cannot be treated with no more respect than a laboratory rat destined to be sacrificed for the sake of science.Again, we see some of the extreme comments that the member for Warringah is prepared to utilise in his typically rigid opposition to this bill. The final point he made was:I am very conscious of the cry that we have heard from so many speakers in this debate, from so many people who debate this in the community, that we have a duty to help the sick. Of course we all have a duty to help the sick. But there is a fundamental principle here: that you cannot help one person by harming another.The obvious point to make in response to the member for Warringah is that the bill is not about harming people at all. The bill is about using cells, not people, to help real living people. Tadpoles are not babies or children, and frogs are not grown human beings. There is no analogy between tadpoles and frogs and human beings.There is not a great deal that can or needs to be done to achieve or advance the welfare of frogs, but, even so, where it is necessary, scientists will use their skills to help the frog species. But there are diseases and illnesses that affect humanity, and they can be enormous in their impact on human beings, and scientists want to deal with them. Stem cell research offers an important way forward. We can leave it for the member for Warringah's colleague, the member for North Sydney, who dealt very effectively with the arguments of the member for Warringah. He said:I do not believe, as do some of my colleagues, that it is the role of government to preach and legislate morality. This is not a church, and I am not standing in a pulpit. As an elected representative of the Australian people, it is not my role to exclusively impose my values on others; it is to represent, take into account and promote community values that nurture the aspirations of our nation and its people.I wish I had said that. It sums it up perfectly. I rarely agree with the member for North Sydney, but in this instance I believe he is precisely correct. He continued:Moreover, the most recent suggestion that those who support this bill may not have thought deeply enough about it smacks of intellectual elitism. Again, I find I am in total agreement with the member for North Sydney. Perhaps the most powerful contribution came from the member for Bonython, who said:Parliament should not be about debating the relevant merits of the scientific conduct of one type of scientific debate or another; in other words, this debate is not about whether it is adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells that will ultimately produce the correct scientific advance here.... ... ...Our task here is to determine whether any of that conduct is so reprehensible, so improper and so outrageous that it should be made illegal, no matter what the potential outcome.... ... ...If in a few years time those cures are available on the world market, will those who maintain that this process is so immoral it should be banned then deny Australian patients the right to import those cures?Those are very powerful and appropriate words. He continued:Will they say, `Australians cannot travel to the United Kingdom to receive those cures'? ... Will they arrest them on their return? ... Would they deny their own family members access to those cures?Of course they will not do that.I appreciate the wide range of views that have been expressed in this debate. I understand the particular passion that supporters of each side of the debate have brought to outlining their views on the subject. I understand that some sections of the community are strongly critical of the legislation and want it opposed. I respect their views and, more importantly, their right to express them. But I also believe that members of parliament have to consider the views and interests of those sections of the community not pushing one particular side or the other. MPs are elected to take account, where possible, of all views, all interests and all needs.Quite often this requires that an MP recognise what is good for the community overall and that there are interests involved that are wider than those of any one section of the community. Sometimes some groups can be well organised and muster a lot of strength behind their cause; quite often that is a reflection of their strong moral and ideological commitment. But parliament is the national forum and the national legislator, and the long-term community interest of the nation as a whole has to be the guiding light for any member of federal parliament. I conclude, after giving much consideration to this legislation, that there are stronger arguments for supporting it than for opposing it. Accordingly, I have decided to exercise my vote in favour of the legislation.18:16:005860Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight in this debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 to speak on an issue I was confronted with at a media doorstop during the week. When I was asked about the legislation being referred to the Main Committee, I suggested that it was time we voted on this bill. I have been lobbied from various quarters ad infinitum and I have been reminded of my duties by various sections. In fact, I have had people come to my area and say, `All evangelical Christians are voting against this bill, and I understand you're not.' They then proceeded to lobby me hard. I have had suggestions that the research is inappropriate and also assumptions that I automatically will be voting against the bill.As a strongly committed Christian, I have found that there are difficulties in voting for the bill but, nevertheless, I think the case that we should proceed is overwhelming. Although I respect the views of those who have presented their cases to me during the last several months in my electorate—and I am sorry that I will be disappointing them by voting for the legislation—it is nevertheless clear to me that, whether we take it on moral grounds or scientific grounds, we should go ahead. The statement usually comes down to the idea that we should preserve the sanctity of life at all costs. In my view, this is about a celebration of life. It is about looking to those who are alive and moving on planet earth right now; it is their primary concerns we should be addressing.Those who wish to enter into Christian rhetoric with me should also remember that the one we follow is the one who went out healing the sick, giving sight to the blind and moving with compassion amongst people, and standing by were those Pharisees who condemned Him according to the letter of the law. In addressing this issue there is the danger that we will move on the side of the Pharisees and simply state the letter of the law rather than see the need for compassion. Whether it be for Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy or cystic fibrosis, I believe that research into embryonic stem cells provides some opportunity. It is clear that we should continue research into both embryonic and adult stem cells. I think the two need to move together. Cutting off one leg of the chair—as those who are closest in research say—is obviously a problem if we are to go ahead.The rest of the world is moving ahead. The majority of European countries are moving rapidly in terms of research not only at the stem cell level but also at the embryonic stem cell level. If we lag behind, we will not be part of the world research activities and many of our researchers will leave us and go overseas to study embryonic stem cells. The research will, undoubtedly, go on, and we will need to import embryos into this country in order to undertake that research. Of course, the intellectual property that comes from the findings of that research will need to, under patent, be passed on to the multinational companies that control the embryos. To me this is not an appropriate way to go. It certainly ignores those who are in need, in pain and often in despair with their affliction. This research particularly relates to children. As I understand it, research regarding children and their diseases is where embryonic stem cells have the most application and are most useful. To me that is a very compelling reason. Every second Saturday I conduct area consultation. I had not thought much about this issue and a woman pushed a wheelchair in front of me in which she had her son, who is a quadriplegic. With tears pouring down her face she said, `When the stem cell debate comes on and when there is legislation, please vote for it. This is the only hope that my son has. We want to have hope in terms of our family. This has been a catastrophe that we have had to bear since my son became a quadriplegic. Look at him. He was a young man with great potential, who had everything going for him, and look at him now.' She stood there with a torrent of tears running down her face. What could I say? Could I say, `I am not sure about the letter of the law. When does the embryo become an actual person? I don't know on legal grounds that I could touch it.' You look at them and you say, `Of course I'll help you. Of course I'll support you. I'm very sorry that you have these problems.'If we were going to preserve life then I would be all for it. I am sure my colleagues who have spoken in favour of this bill would all be saying, `Let's save life at all costs.' But the fact is that the embryos have been created and, having been created, some are used for implantation into the womb and from that they then develop and become wonderful children, and that is fantastic. We are talking about the embryos that are not used and are sitting there awaiting destruction. The fact that they are ultimately going to be destroyed means that we are not dealing with causing the destruction of the embryo, because they are going to be destroyed anyway—they will be simply exposed to the air and then removed. In this case there is a real opportunity to use the embryos for research and to use them in all the beneficial ways that we would understand.So from my point of view the debate is not grey. Today as one of my colleagues shared with me that he was struggling with his conscience I said, `I don't know what it is, but I don't have a huge problem with my conscience on this issue, because it is clear that this is the way the whole scientific community is moving in terms of research in this area.' We hear experts say, `Yes, it would be quite useful,' and the people against say, `But we have moral objections.' But we should have both the adult stem cells and the embryonic stem cells side by side, moving on and under way, and Australia should be part of the international research community. When we look at relieving pain and suffering in areas such as muscular dystrophy, Parkinson's disease et cetera it is clear to me on a scientific basis that we should proceed, that we should use our researchers in this area. The benefits that we establish from these investigations and research should stay in this country.On the moral side of the debate, these are cells which are not going to be used anyway. We know from the research that some 60 per cent of the parents are in favour of the unused embryos that have been created being used for research. You have cells which either are going to be flushed away or can be used for some vital and significant purpose. I am not sure where the moral dilemma is. I have heard people say that it is a slippery slope and that once you allow this we will get into human cloning, and what will happen next? This is what we are here for—to determine the parameters in which we undertake this study. From my point of view, we are dealing with a group of cells that have come together and it is only when they are placed in the uterus and when they have been established in the uterus and are growing that you can start talking about a human being that is being developed within the womb.The Anglican Primate Peter Carnley—a leading cleric, although he has his critics within the Anglican Church for being a liberal—said:The moment of fertilisation cannot be equated with conception. Conception is a process that takes around 2 weeks and occurs in a womb. If we insist that the embryo is endowed with a soul from the moment of fertilisation ... in the instance of one embryo splitting into two identical twins after several days ... are we then to say one soul has become two?That is a very relevant factor. We can get into definitions—when does life begin et cetera—but this is about using the great breakthroughs we have in science for the benefit of all humanity. Why prevent it? Embryonic stem cell research offers to humanity the importance of not only continuing adult stem cell research but also developing a new area. Dr Paul Brock said in his address to the briefing here in parliament last week:... both embryonic and adult stem cell research hold out real prospects of deceleration, reversal and cure for motor neurone disease. It is not a case of one or the other. We need both. I do not know whether you have seen someone up close and personal with motor neurone disease. I was MC at a fundraiser for a local sporting hero who was into everything and achieving marvellous things in marathons but he was struck by motor neurone disease. He could hardly move. There was a huge outpouring of support in my area for this guy—a wonderful guy, but this disease had struck him down. What Dr Paul Brock said is that we have a great opportunity to move forward with both embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research at the same time. Already, for example, the deployment of embryonic stem cell lines has significantly reversed MND in mice in laboratory research. The promise of major developments in the fight against such devastating diseases as motor neurone disease, diabetes, Parkinson's and even cancer is too good to be ignored. There are many reasons that can be traversed for the research and what needs to happen. We have traversed these arguments significantly over the last several weeks in this House. As a Christian it is clear to me. I have thought about it long and hard and I am not by any means saying that my view is preferable to another's, because we have a conscience vote in this House on the issue and people come at it from different perspectives. We should celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we do not have one person tell us which way to vote. We have the ability to think these things through and to decide what is appropriate and what is not.I am not someone who has the answers to life's problems by any means, and we all struggle to understand what is the right thing to do. From my point of view, if there is a real opportunity to relieve the suffering in adults and particularly in children, our hope for tomorrow, and to achieve breakthroughs in the great battles we have with particular diseases, I cannot believe that the person we most admire and follow in our religion would not reach out his hand in sympathy, compassion and love to say, `I have compassion on you; let's move on with the research.' Dr John Yeo was one of the leading orthopaedic surgeons in Sydney. He was renowned for running the unit at North Sydney Hospital that dealt with motor accidents. When I was minister for transport in New South Wales, at Christmas and Easter time we used to roll out Dr Yeo, who would say, `I am dealing each year with hundreds of people who have been damaged so badly because of speed on the road and people not taking care. I want you and your families to take it easy this holiday weekend.' He had so much experience. He is also a leading Christian in Sydney. His wife is a former headmistress of Roseville College, which is a leading Anglican school. He is on the board of Macquarie University's Christian Studies Institute. He rang me and said, `I do not know what you are doing in terms of this bill, but I want you to know how strongly I feel that you should support it. You have not seen the damaged bodies that I have as we try to put those bodies together. This does not provide magic solutions but it does provide us with some hope in those areas where we have not been able to have breakthroughs before.' He said, `On this basis, support it. I have looked at the moral issues as well as a Christian, but I want to support you, because this is going to go out and relieve the suffering that we see in some areas. We know it is not a panacea but it certainly is going to assist.'I commend the bill to the House. I will be supporting it for the reasons I have outlined.Sitting suspended from 6.32 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:005863Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—In speaking on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 at this late stage I am mindful, on the one hand, that there have been so many contributions that there is no value in belabouring at length points made by other speakers. On the other hand, it is rare that there are conscience votes and this is a matter that has engendered interest in all our electorates. I do owe those people who have written to me a public comment with regard to my response to these matters. I thank the 60-odd people who have either sent cards or written personal letters to me about this matter.I will turn to a few procedural matters. Firstly, I certainly associate myself with the early decision of the Leader of the Opposition to allow a conscience vote on this matter inside our party. I think he has forced the agenda on the broader political spectrum with regard to that action. Secondly, while I am probably not going to say anything that is monumentally world shattering, I do feel that it was unfortunate that the government determined that the debate would be moved from the House of Representatives to the Main Committee. While some people might be resentful of a degree of harassment and disruption that occurred as a result of that, I think they should also be mindful that the actual bill that was debated in place of this one in the House of Representatives, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Bill 2002, was certainly uncontroversial. One has to question the leadership role of the Leader of the House in deciding that that non-controversial bill—and I am not belittling veterans' issues and their needs—should be debated in the place of this one. It was non-controversial and one has to question why, vis-a-vis that bill, we had to have this debate in the Main Committee.I am mindful that this issue has not been landed on people out of the blue. We have had the National Health and Medical Research Council hold public consultations throughout the length and breadth of the country. We have had the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs discuss this matter for two years, and I note the comments of the member for Gellibrand when she said: It was one of the most rewarding things I have done since being elected ... a very worthwhile process.That is something we all feel about some of the inquiries we participate in. That committee came to a conclusion after very lengthy hearings and a degree of consideration on the matters.Finally, we have had the state and territory governments come to a consensus over this matter to bring in an agenda which will mean liberalisation in some states and more restrictive practices in other states to get a national balance. As I said, it is not a matter that has been landed on the parliament or the nation without time to consider it and without the ability for people to have input.On the question of people having input, I certainly associate myself with the Leader of the Opposition's contention that this country should have an organisation such as that in the United States that provides public education with regard to these matters. I recall being involved in an inquiry into genetic engineering some years ago and I was very concerned that the industry, for example, wanted an educational committee that would drive their self-interest. I do not want that in this field. But certainly to have more knowledge, a more informed debate and a more rational discussion of the issues, we do need to ensure that in a fairly objective way people are provided with information.Returning for a moment to the matter of a conscience vote, I notice the member for Watson was quoted as advocating a wider use of conscience votes. I have just been to Germany on my study tour and one of the things that struck me was that the Germans were surprised at how competitive our political system is. When I put to them: `What would happen if parties in your society undertook these kinds of practices?' they said, `It just would not happen.' We live in a society where we cannot even get an independent Speaker in the House of Representatives. That is how partisan and competitive our political system is. I really do not think there is much ambit for a wider conscience vote in a system that is so driven by party partisan politics.I do want to make one point on the matter of a conscience vote. I am a person who, in my own political grouping inside my party, is not characteristic because I have always thought that, if people do think that it is a matter of life and death, a conscience vote is a reasonable process for our party. That is not characteristic of the faction I associate with. I want to make another point. Those people who are so determined to exert their conscience in regard to these matters of life and death perhaps should be mindful that there are other people to be considered. While we say we cannot widen the conscience vote to every issue, they perhaps should be mindful that there could be people who see matters of life and death in declarations of war, in armaments or in neo-liberal economics. There is the situation in Africa where we see countries compelled by the drive to globalisation to reduce their expenditure on health and education and where young people are particularly affected by the growth of disease because of those measures. These situations are often matters of life and death. The reduction of foreign aid to the developing world in recent years and the very conservative trend to basically destroy the autonomy of African countries particularly and force them to adhere to neo-liberal economic measures are also matters of life and death. I remember in the first Gulf War a number of Labor senators abstained from voting with regard to that declaration—the war that was going to get rid of Saddam Hussein and accomplish other measures. Probably by their numbers they forced the ALP to wear it, even though they might not have liked it at the time. It is important that people become very intense about matters such as euthanasia, abortion and, again, this matter here today, and I respect their right to try to accomplish a conscience vote because it is so vital to their thinking. But perhaps they should be mindful that there are other matters of life and death involving children around the world and perhaps they should be more tolerant with regard to diversity on those matters.I note the comments of the member for Hindmarsh in saying that in excess of 70,000 embryos will be destroyed, and that affects my thinking very fundamentally. If at the moment people can authorise the destruction of embryos and a minimal number of them are needed for research that can accomplish major gains for people, and if you accept the reality of the IVF program, quite frankly and realistically it is in the public interest to allow the possibilities of these health gains. We have heard them recited: Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease et cetera. Realistically those embryos would be destroyed and, as I say, it is better that they be put to good public use. However, I join the member for Fremantle. I was impressed by her contribution when she stressed that we should not give people the belief that all their problems are necessarily going to be solved. There are people out there who have been led by the propagandists in support of this legislation to believe that each and every one of them might have their difficulties overcome. We are really endorsing a regime that might accomplish, through strenuous research effort and big dollars, some of these gains—some of them over future decades. We have to be cautious. We are mindful of the reality that if we do not get a national scheme up and running which is respected and credible then we would lose out in the biomedical international agenda. At the same time we should not be driven to false hopes of a nirvana by those people who also have a commercial interest. I agree with her contribution when she said that there should be a degree of caution, that we have to examine each time the demands of these industries, these corporations and these medical institutes, and that we have to be mindful that they have an interest in exaggerating their gains. Briefly, I think that the overall measure should be endorsed. It blocks cloning. It bans the implantation into women of embryos that have been used for research. It sets up a licensing regime that will ensure that there are reasonable safeguards. There is also in this legislation the proposal that there be a worthwhile scheme for licensing that provides some protections. It also entails the continued requirement for the donor's consent and, as I said earlier, it overrides and introduces restrictions about the use of human embryos in states to achieve a national balance. And that is very important. We do not want to have a system where states are all going to the lowest possible standards to attract corporate dollars. We want a national system in which everyone knows where they are and the public interest and medical requirements take precedence over an attempt to attract dollars to particular states. We sometimes see that they haggle for tourism or compete to get Mitsubishi or some other corporation to establish a plant in their state, lowering their standards to attract those industries.In conclusion, I believe this legislation is a reasonable balance. The role of the Prime Minister and the states in coming to a consensus on this matter, the very long-term discussion of the matter through consultations in the country and the work undertaken by the relevant parliamentary committee assure me—and I have also dealt with the opportunity here and many of the contributions of other members of this House—that this legislation on balance is worth while because it can provide a real possibility that the number of people suffering will be reduced, their life extended and their pain reduced. I do commend the legislation.20:11:005866Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I would like to thank the member for Reid for his contribution but advise him that I take a contrary view on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. It is a very important issue and a very important bill that the parliament is currently debating. It is seminal to me as someone who places very high priority on respect for mankind and humanity. There are two important aspects of the bill which I would like differentiate. It seeks to ban the cloning of human beings, which is an action I very strongly support—and I do note there is a universal will to do this across the community and obviously amongst the members and senators of this place—and I want to be associated with that. But I am very much torn in respect of what can happen to human embryos that find themselves excess to those required for the in-vitro fertilisation program. I want to confine most of my remarks to the centralness of that issue.I would like it on the record that I am a very avid supporter of stem cell research associated with stem cells from adults. I am an engineer and hold a master of science degree. I have a natural fascination for the search for knowledge and the process by which some day we will understand how a small stem cell can possess the knowledge to develop itself into some very important function within a human body.Many speakers have spoken about the demonstrated and proven track record of adult stem cell research. Since his visit to Australia, I have been reading very carefully the writings of Professor David Prentice, who is Professor of Life Sciences at the Indiana State University. He is so concerned about the need to promote ethics in research activity, he was instrumental in forming the group Do No Harm in the United States, which has subsequently gained momentum here in Australia. He, like me, has come to the conclusion that experimentation on embryonic stem cells leaves him cold. I just cannot find myself prepared to support such a thing. But it is not an easy issue to come to grips with. I have struggled, like every member, to listen to all sides of the debate: the most impassioned and emotive, to the logical and practical, which is the position I like to put myself in.The difficult ethical issue with which we are all plagued is the status of these embryos. To describe how I have worked through this is to understand, in our hearts and minds and within our conscience, whether these embryos are human or not. That is a very fundamental issue, seminal to what we have come to know as respect for humanity, which is to say: are they entitled to be embraced in that great circle of humanity or not? That is the great circle that I have heard members of this place champion, as I have, when we get so upset about seeing somebody's human rights being abused. I was impressed by the comments by the Deputy Prime Minister—although at the time I was trying to place them in a historical context—when he made reference to groups of humanity who in the past have found themselves outside this circle, without a preparedness by the rest of humanity to embrace them. They are voiceless—unable to stand in places like this and have their voice heard—and completely dispossessed and disenfranchised. I liken that to the position of embryos today who find themselves in excess of the needs of a program designed to bring joy to families who have not been able to have children by natural processes. I am a little curious to understand the position that some people have come to, that they could step away from the entitlement of this very large group of humanity who have no voice. This really saddens me. I need to ask myself and the society that is around me: why is this happening? Are we being mesmerised by the elusive enticement of the potential promises for cures for debilitating diseases offered by stem cell research sourced from embryos? I have read and I have read, and I have determined a position that I will not be seduced by this lure. I, too, have met people with some debilitating diseases, such as those whom the member for Reid mentioned, who desperately hope for some miracle cure, but I do not want to be seduced by that because I see extremely positive medical outcomes that have resulted from the use of adult stem cells sourced from that range of definition, even down to aborted foetuses. There is another reason why I will not be seduced, and that is that I have developed a distinctive distrust for the advice that is being offered by the avid promoters of embryos as a source for stem cells. It was Professor Prentice himself who, in August this year, first raised concerns about the so-called iconic landmark promoted by Professor Alan Trounson, which was purportedly to demonstrate the curing of a disabled rodent by the use of stem cells sourced from embryos. I was grateful at last to read in today's Australian that this fraud has been exposed; that, in fact, the source of the stem cells was not what we have come to know as embryos.I go back to my original question and I say to myself: are these excess ART embryos human or not? It is not a question of theology. I put aside my own very strong spiritual convictions and put on my logical, scientific, engineering hat and it is simply a question of ethics. What does the legislation say? The legislation goes to some trouble to make definitions about what a human embryo is. Point 7, `Definitions', of part 6 of the legislation reads:human embryo means a live embryo that has a human genome or an altered human genome and that has been developing for less than 8 weeks since the appearance of 2 pro-nuclei or the initiation of its development by other means.I can understand the definition of human embryo being required in respect of the provisions that the bill makes for cloning, but I would like members who are considering their position on this to consider my definition of what is human. I have listened very carefully to the contributions of members in this debate, from people for whom I have immense respect on all sides, and I have wavered to and fro on what I intended to say here and what my ultimate position would be. My perception is that there has been some clever juxtaposition on this question, which, in my view, ends up being academic and designed to appease whatever questions of conscience we each have in our own minds. I have been very much tempted myself to go that way.However, I just cannot get away from the concept that this tiny little embryo that we cannot even see yet—half a dozen of which would fit on the fat end of a pin—possesses an incredibly unique quality. It is not a bit of vegetable matter or animal tissue to be callously discarded. It possesses within itself this unfathomable miracle of nature that is not yet understood and somehow it possesses the knowledge to form an intact human being. In other words, this is an embryo that has taken the first step towards its humanity. Any other discussion after that point, to me, is just academic.This tiny little embryo has within it the knowledge that it is going to develop into a male or a female. It somehow has the knowledge of the facial features it will have as a human being. It knows what hair colour it will have—I would be curious to know if it even knows that when it gets to my age it will have no hair. It even knows by some mystery of nature what eye colour this human being is going to have. It is extremely unique. In fact, it is this very uniqueness that the biomedical fraternity seek. They seek access to this uniqueness in their search to find processes towards the healing of human frailty.In other words, for all intents and purposes, these embryos are humans just like you and me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Sadly, to my way of thinking, they suffer only two deficiencies. The first deficiency is that they do not have the capacity in their own right to be placed within the succour of a mother's womb to nurture them to some form of development. The second deficiency is that they have not yet learned to speak. Despite the fact that by some great mystery of nature they have the knowledge to form all of the things necessary for good communication—the human features of a larynx, a voice box and facial expressions—they suffer the deficiency that they have not yet learned to speak. I ask: who is going to speak for them?I am a little saddened by the perspective that I have come to because the die is apparently already cast in terms of both the will of society around us and certainly the will of members in this place, having listened to their contributions. I would like to lay this challenge before the members present: if perchance it were possible that these embryos could speak, what would they say to us? What would they have to say to us in terms of their humanity? Wouldn't they demand fundamental respect for their dignity? Wouldn't they want somebody who was lying in a hospital bed with a terminal illness for which there is no cure to be able to ask for the respect to be left to pass on with dignity? Wouldn't they say that? I am staggered that society has not put itself in a position where it might try to imagine what these tiny little embryos—with the full potential of developing into human beings—might say to us. I believe that there are many members in this place who share this view, and the next question to consider places us all under immense pressure. We say that the legislation has safeguards in place to ensure that the decision to allow the destruction of an embryo and permission for it to be used for experimental purposes belongs with the parents who have the custodial responsibility for the embryo. I try to draw some rest in that in terms of my conscience, but I still say it is not good enough in terms of what is a very fundamental principle which this parliament spends a lot of time defending: the rights, respect and dignity of all of humanity.The next step to consider concerns the fact that these embryos, because they are in excess, are going to die anyway. I am curious that the drafters of the legislation and of the accompanying memorandum all use the word `succumb'. We cannot even bring ourselves to the point of saying these embryos will die—they succumb. I have to say that we are all going to die anyway—all of us. Hopefully, for some of us there might be some good words said in this place on our passing about our contribution. So we are all going to die anyway, but that does not justify in any way exterminating one another or, without permission, subjecting our mortal remains to some form of experimentation.I am not trying to be emotive about this; I have made myself think logically on these matters. I am concerned about a society that comes to this point and says, `They are going to be taken out of the test tube and allowed to succumb; therefore, why can't we justify using them for experimentation on the basis that thousands of unwanted embryos will be unceremoniously disposed of?' There is nobody to grieve for them; there is nobody to say fine words about them. I despair for a society that has taken itself to this step. I think it is probably bad enough to allow surplus embryos to thaw and succumb without any expression of grief, but to deliberately allow them to be experimented upon is an even worse act of inhumanity, despite all the purported benefits, when there already exists a well-documented process of scientific biomedical research with proven results using adult stem cells.I come to my concluding remarks. Whilst the die is already cast I think that in terms of process it would be helpful if the parliament could see its way to at least allow the splitting of this bill, to allow us all to make a conclusive statement on cloning and then to deal with the thorny issue of human embryo research separately. I am in the hands of the parliament on that matter, and I will accept its verdict. If the bill stays in its present form, I will have no alternative other than to oppose it on the basis of my fundamental respect for humanity and the expectations of a community out there that sees this as the central issue of the bill, not cloning. I, along with many others, will rest my conscience knowing that at least I spoke for that vast group of voiceless humanity, whose only other real deficiency is that there are not enough people here to speak on their behalf. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on their behalf.20:30:005869Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 provides the Commonwealth legislative base for the decision of the Council of Australian Governments meeting held on 5 April this year. The bill bans cloning for the purpose of creating a human being and sets out a regulatory framework for the use of excess human embryos created by assisted reproductive technology. I support the bill. I do so exercising the free vote provided by the decision of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, unencumbered by any direct or indirect pressure on me to vote one way or the other.I have listened to or read most of the debate thus far on this bill. I have distilled much of the literature made available, including the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled Human cloning: scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning and stem cell research. I have read the correspondence and listened to the case put to me by many constituents both in support of and in opposition to this legislation. I am thankful for all this input. I, like many of my colleagues, wish to place on record my respect for the views of those who have come to a conclusion that differs from mine. I hope that they will understand that I have taken my decision in a very considered fashion.This bill does not allow for the creation of embryos solely for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research and the development of embryonic stem cell lines. It does regulate the use of excess embryos which have been created as a result of assisted reproductive technology. Importantly, the bill sets out a regime for the licensing and monitoring of any therapeutic research that takes place. Excess embryos would only be made available with the consent of the donors of the egg and sperm and after participants in the IVF program and their spouses agree. As this legislation stands, in the absence of the embryos' involvement in the research being permitted, they would be destroyed. Given the possibility that, as a result of this research, pain and suffering might be alleviated, I cannot in all conscience allow such a potential benefit to be thwarted and this potential good to be denied. In reaching this conclusion, I caution that we should not give false hope. But, having said that, I believe we can act in anticipation of the possible good that might eventuate. Because of the nature of scientific research, it is not surprising that there is debate and disagreement about the potential of the techniques to be regulated by this legislation. I have listened to the argument that suggests that research based on adult stem cells is sufficient. Again, my assessment is that this is not an argument about adult versus embryonic stem cells. Research based on the two types of cell lines should go on in tandem because we simply do not know the possibilities at this stage. Many scientific experts have been quoted to support contentions. Many have been interpreted and misinterpreted. Regrettably, some themselves have misinterpreted or misrepresented. A senior scientist who I hold in great respect Sir Gustav Nossal, Professor Emeritus at the University of Melbourne and the Director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne from 1965 to 1996, is one who I believe has been misinterpreted earlier in this debate. Gus Nossal contributed an interesting article to the Canberra Times on 19 August in support of the type of research that might be permissible under this legislation. He realistically reminded us of the difficulty of converting research findings into clinical realities.In conclusion, our role as legislators is set great challenges by the speed at which scientific knowledge and endeavour is taking us into unchartered territory. This will continue, but I believe this legislation provides the appropriate and adequate control for research involving embryonic cells that are covered by its intent.20:36:005870Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—When members of this House have to vote on a matter of conscience we have the tremendous responsibility to try to represent the views of our constituency whether or not they accord with our own. We have a grave responsibility in the consideration of the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I would like to start by giving some historical perspective. In the opening chapter of a book titled Great Feuds in Medicine by Hal Hellman, the author relates the fate of Eufame Macalyanne, who in 1591 sought relief from the pain of childbirth. For this transgression she was burned at the stake in Edinburgh. The author questions in his book, `Does not Holy Writ refer to the primeval curse on women?' That perhaps gives us some indication as to why she was burnt at the stake. A quarter of a century later the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was burnt alive for his stubborn espousal of the idea that the universe was infinite. Bruno, along with Galileo Galilei, who dared to publish a book in 1600 arguing against the same Ptolemaic system as Bruno, was sentenced to house arrest. The punishment became less, but the risks were great. Both these men had ideas thought to be sacrilegious, as they challenged theories strongly supported by the church.The book goes on to outline some of the great feuds in medicine, from the discovery that the washing of hands in maternity hospitals stopped the spread of disease and therefore the death of many babies to the 21st century debate on the treatment of AIDS. The elements which these cases have in common is that they sparked questions that involved scientific, medical, theological, moral and economic arguments. The bill we are now debating, the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, results from medical and scientific research that goes to the very beginning of life and in that regard it is greatly differentiated from most other debates over new scientific discoveries over the last century or so.It is right that the House of Representative members, as the primary law-makers in the country, engage in a vigorous and well-researched, well-thought-out and well-informed debate. From the debate so far in this place, such as the one we have heard from the member for Forrest, the public can be assured that whatever view members have come to it has been with a great deal of thought and soul searching, and with a respect and understanding of the different views expressed by many members of the public. That is certainly the case for me and, while my intention is to support the bill, it has presented me with the kinds of dilemmas most members have confronted in this place. In our endeavours to come to a conclusion, we have heard from doctors, scientists, theologians, patients, parents of children, and adults with incurable diseases or diseases that have diminished greatly their quality of life.Most of us have had the benefit of drawing on information from this parliament's report on human cloning produced by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in September 2001. That committee considered the work of other parliaments in the world and in its report the committee quoted the response of President George Bush of the United States in August 2001 when he approved federal funding for research on certain stem cell lines taken from human embryos. I think he summed it up rather well when he said:Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. ... ... ...At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages. As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields. That is self-evident in this debate. This particular ethical minefield probably had its beginnings in 1948. It is thought that, by accident, a laboratory technician at the National Institute for Medical Research used the contents of a bottle of Mayer's albumen instead of sugar fructose laevulose to protect fowl spermatozoa against the injurious effects of freezing and thawing required for the long-term preservation of these cells. The glycerol in Mayer's albumen is used in the freezing of cells today.Since Professor Carl Wood produced the first test-tube baby in 1980, thousands of children have started life as IVF babies, and the freezing of embryos provokes similar concerns to those we are hearing in this debate. These concerns are the moral and ethical dilemmas—that intersection between ethics and science that President Bush referred to. But the IVF program is strongly supported today and many Australian families are grateful for the scientific discoveries that mean that infertile couples have the hope of having a child.It has been interesting to listen to the presentations of the many professionals that we have heard from in this place. Although there seems to be no question today about the ethics of the IVF program, where up to 60 per cent of the frozen embryos are discarded in the process of achieving a pregnancy, the same people argue that it is wrong to use surplus embryos for furthering research into stem cells. One of the professors I heard earlier this week postulated that the difference was that IVF is involved in creating life whereas, in his view, stem cell research—that is embryonic stem cell research—is destroying life. I thought very long about that statement. In some respects I have an understanding of where he is coming from, but I personally found it very difficult to understand the logic or indeed any moral high ground in this particular argument. On the same day at the same session I listened to Professor Bob Williamson, Director of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, say—and I am paraphrasing, not quoting entirely—`Stem cells are of interest to medical researchers because they could be most useful in treating infants and children with diseases such as leukemia, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and similar disorders, where inherited or acquired DNA changes lead to problems.'Professor Bob Williamson went on to say: `Some stem cell therapies, such as using cord blood to treat leukaemia, are already in use'—and we have had a lot of commentary on the use of adult stem cells and cord blood—`For many of the situations we envisage, adult stem cells will in the long run work best because there will be no problems with rejection. But for others, such as the best possible treatment for some types of cancers, embryonic stem cells may be best.' I have to say he was very frank in his comments. He said: `It cannot be emphasised too much that at present we do not know which types of cells will be the best therapy for which diseases. It also cannot be overemphasised that research using embryo and adult stem cells is best done side-by-side so that we can learn from the embryo cells how to make adult stem cells grow rapidly and robustly and give any tissue.'Many of these diseases commonly seen in children can rob them of their lives and, at best, rob them of the quality of life. If we are going to discard frozen embryos used in IVF treatment, then I feel that on balance we should do what we can to use the discarded embryos to enhance and save life, if that is possible. Work needs to continue, in my view, both in adult stem cell research and with embryonic stem cells so that all avenues to prevent premature death and improve the quality of life can be explored.Professor Bob Williamson explained that the stem cells obtained from embryos could be used when they contain 100 cells in all, the size of a pinhead, and before the nervous system exists. Similarly, Dr Catherine Verfaillie acknowledged the value of research continuing in both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Her findings in regard to adult stem cell research are promising; nevertheless, she acknowledges that locating and developing rapidly adult stem cells has limitations.There are, it is estimated, 71,000 frozen IVF embryos—two to eight cells usually and less than 0.01 millimetres in diameter—the majority of which will be used by the patients to establish their own pregnancies. There are probably 15,000 to 20,000 embryos that are excess to IVF patients' needs, and it is this issue that has caused us to carefully consider the moral and ethical intersections with science.There has been a lot of debate and public interest over many decades involving scientific discoveries and medical intervention. John Pickstone put together a very fine book called Ways of knowing: a new history of science, technology and medicine and he says—and I think it is something to ponder in this debate:For, whenever we approach issues which cut to the heart of our human concerns—whatever they may be—the majority of intelligent commentators do in fact recognise the variety of positions held, each one involving both ethical principles and particular approaches to research and results. History can help us articulate and share these complexities, to contextualise them and perhaps to see something of their dynamics ... For in such matters, as so often in issues around `science', we may need reminding to develop our everyday political understandings and to stop being hoodwinked by presentations of `science' (or `religion' or `modernisation') as if they were unitary activities, with no choices as to values.So these debates have engaged us for a very long time—since probably the beginning—and it has not been an easy matter to come to a position on.The Prime Minister in his speech introducing the bill to the House I think made some very important comments. He said:A key fact shaping my view was that at present surplus IVF embryos are disposed of after a set period of time in storage, in consultation normally with the donor where that is possible, and largely through exposure to room temperature.I could not find a sufficiently compelling moral difference between allowing embryos to succumb in this way and destroying them through research that might advance lifesaving and life-enhancing therapies. That is why, in the end, I came out in favour of allowing research involving excess IVF embryos to go ahead.I believe strongly, however, that the special character of embryos warrants a strict regulatory regime for research involving excess IVF embryos. It is also my very strong belief that human embryos should not be created for any purpose other than IVF treatment.The Prime Minister came to this position after a considerable period of consultation with community leaders. He made the point that he talked to people such as the theologians—some of our most eminent church people—and he also spoke to many scientists, including the Chief Scientist, Dr Robin Batterham; Professor Hearn; Dr McCullagh; and Professor Trounson. But in the end, as he said, he had to make up his own mind about it, as we all do, because of this intersection of the ethical and the scientific medical issues.The other thing that I think is unique about this is the fact that the Prime Minister worked with our state colleagues to produce a piece of legislation. The Council of Australian Governments, COAG, agreed that the Commonwealth and the states would introduce nationally consistent legislation, which I think is enormously important. So we have this very detailed piece of legislation which gives us some guidance and considerable detail as to how we might proceed to allow limited research to take place using the embryos that are discarded from the existing IVF programs.This particular legislation is to be reviewed in three years time, so it gives us a chance to assess the scientific merit of the work as it proceeds over the next three years. Some people seem to be of the view in the medical profession that it might be through embryonic stem cell research that we will be able to improve our techniques with adult stem cells. History has shown that very often when scientists have been researching one thing they have discovered something quite different that has been remarkably important to mankind. So, sometimes we set out with a particular goal in mind, but along the way we discover other important things that help us in moving forward in perhaps a more acceptable way to more people.I think it is important that we do have some understanding of the IVF process, because this seems to be an important part of the argument. Dr Washer, my good colleague and member for Moore, in his speech to the House just recently gave us a good outline about that. He said:An embryo is normally transferred to the uterus at the 4-cell stage, 48 hours of age; the 8-cell stage, 72 hours of age, or the blastocyst stage, which is five days of age. All these stages require a microscope for human visualisation and very specialised expertise to achieve successful implantation in the uterus. Even in the best hands there is a loss of between 60 and 80 per cent of fertilised embryos because of failure of implantation. The essential factor here is that we should not interfere in any way with proper research or with the teaching of clinicians to improve this statistic. If it is argued that human life begins immediately after fertilisation, it is probable with these figures that IVF could be challenged by some as being ethically unsustainable. This would be a total tragedy for all those infertile couples.But, as I said, at the end of the Prime Minister's deliberations he recognised the important ethical issues and ensured that this legislation puts rigid controls on the use of embryonic stem cells and, indeed, the legislation prevents human cloning. As I said, the legislation will be reviewed in three years. I support the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. (Time expired)20:56:005873Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I am pleased to participate in this debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I have to admit up front that a long time before this debate took place I was pretty confident that I did not have a fundamental argument against the use of unwanted embryos for stem cell research. But, like all of us, I needed to get informed, and I found it extremely interesting how the debate developed just from my own electorate office. Unlike some, I have an extraordinary faith in the wisdom of everyday people. The political parties often rely so heavily on focus groups. I do not. That simply reinforces for me their general disengagement from the general electorate and their propensity not to mix with everyday people. There were several waves of information and contact with my electorate and the wider community, and I welcomed it. The first wave of contact came through individually written correspondence, both for and against embryonic stem cell research. The correspondence in the main was generally very well written. It was non-emotive, it was respectful, it was non-threatening and it was basically plausibly well argued. It largely came—almost overwhelmingly so—from my electorate, albeit from a large group of people whom I did not know on a personal basis. I wrote back to them all. I explained the Labor Party's position and my own view. I indicated at that time that I would most likely support the research. Not one of the first wave of constituents took exception to that view I made known.The second wave of contact was a little different. It came in the form of a single proforma letter that was either presented in a handwritten or typed form—we are all familiar with this. There were a few words changed but essentially it was the same letter. Along with it came hundreds of postcard style letters, just with a signature, all opposing stem cell research. Nevertheless, as in the first wave of correspondence, none of this was disrespectful or threatening. It presented a point of view from the electorate and it deserved respect. As is our wont as parliamentarians, I also answered all of those letters and postcards in a similar format to the first wave of correspondence and I indicated, as I did before, that I would be most likely supporting the bill. Not one of that second wave of constituents, many of whose names I recognised as practising Catholics in my electorate, took me to task for my views, even though obviously not one of them agreed with me.The third wave of contact that came to my office came in the form of information—scientific, ethical and so on—largely from groups rather than individuals but obviously written by individuals, and I allowed this information to mount up into quite a file before I decided to read and analyse it. I thought: how do I approach this? We all have this pile. I thought: what do I do? Do I just read through it coldly? I stopped; I put it off, as we also do. We put it into a little basket and say, `I'll do that tomorrow; I'll do that the next day.' Eventually, I wrote down a set of questions and criteria for myself before I read any of it, to judge which was more valid and which was to be taken more seriously. Was the exposition analytical? If so, keep it. Was the exposition synthesised? If so, reject it. Was the exposition objective? Keep it. Was it subjective? Reject it. Was the exposition explicit? Keep it. Was the exposition non-explicit? Reject it. Did the exposition actually explain? Keep it. Did the exposition merely describe? Reject it. Did the exposition contain value judgments? Reject. Did the exposition moralise? Reject. Did the exposition use emotional argument? Reject. Did the exposition threaten in any way? Reject. Finally, did the exposition have a coherent set of philosophies, processes and outcomes? Keep; if not, reject. I had two piles. One went in the bin and the other I read very carefully.What I had left was a lot of scientific argument, mostly supporting embryonic stem cell research, but not exclusively so; some did not. During this contribution, I do not intend to canvass the scientific arguments. They have been more than comprehensively covered by colleagues on both sides of this House. For me, three key questions arose: how could human life be defined? What unintended consequences could there be? What is more important—the hope of looking forward to a future or the denial of looking back to a past? Is an embryo outside the uterus human life? I cannot and do not accept that it is. Therefore, when presented with the options like natural expiry of the embryo destruction or stem cell research with the approval of the respective male and female, I favour the research. If emotion, subjectivity, moralising, description, threat and so on are expressed, I reject it—in this debate or in any other debate. For me, analysis, objectivity, explicitness and coherence determine my view on this or on any other matter. And what about those unintended consequences? I see a danger to the IVF program, which I support. I hope that none ever arises. Many people have pointed out—some people in this House have pointed out—that there is a danger to the IVF program.Interestingly, a fourth wave of contact came from my electorate. It was the most illuminating and powerful of all. It was all face to face and the people did not fit into neat categories. Catholics both opposed and supported stem cell research, as did other Christian denominations. Non-Christians largely supported it, but some did not. It reinforced the great education axiom: the most powerful human exchanges are the impact of mind upon mind. In this debate, for me, that was certainly the case.When I analysed the face-to-face contacts, overall about two-thirds of the constituents supported the embryo stem cell research. The other third were split into two groups: those who were strongly opposed and those who were sceptical of the possible scientific benefits. The fifth wave of contact, largely from groups outside my electorate—we all know these—was in the main objectionable. In opposing this embryo stem cell research, they resorted to threatening language, exaggerated claims and, I felt, disrespect to me as an individual. I wrote back and I told them so. I did intend to actually read into the Hansard the names of these groups and the individuals who signed their names, but on reflection why give acknowledgment to charlatans of this kind? Even those supporting embryo stem cell research, as I do, resorted to exaggerated and emotive claims but, unlike the oppositionists, they did not personally threaten me or my office. If I had still been in any doubt in any way—as obviously, from this debate, some members were—I do not think a threatening approach would have had any effect on me except the opposite to the one intended. As a member of parliament, you just reject threats. I am sure most people do. Hope is a powerful attribute for us all. It is the basis of all learning. It is the basis of all truth. It is the basis of all optimistic behaviour. It is positive. It lifts people's aspirations. It challenges people to do better. It is the most potent prerequisite for change. Hope is about the promises of the future. It is about looking ahead. It is about destiny. It is about rewards and it is about all the possibilities. Listening to this debate, especially from those who oppose embryonic stem cell research, I can say there is more than a touch of narrowing of hope, of denial, of retrospection, of yesterday and yesteryear and of simply fate. Rather than newness, it is archiving and gazing back to the past—a past, by the way, that no longer exists. That is a charge that could also be pointed at those who oppose reform in political parties including my own, but I suppose that is another story. But they too have a desperate lunge back to a past that no longer exists. Perhaps they need to read and re-read Alvin Toffler's Future Shock. But in both cases, a denial of the present occurs, a reaction to change occurs and a desperate grasp towards a past that no longer exists dominates the thinking of both individuals and groups. With respect, it is exactly not the way to the future.In conclusion, I support the bill and I have no problem in doing so. An embryo outside the uterus is not human life. Research on unwanted embryos is preferable to natural destruction. The IVF program should be nurtured, not threatened. Lastly, hope for a better future through the possibility of cures for crippling and terminal diseases is a worthwhile aim and reflects the very best of humankind. Denial of these possibilities is simply that—denial—and it is a reflection on some of the most negative aspects of humankind. We have always had them; we always will. But I reject that and I hope I always will. Tonight, I spoke to Peter Clements, the chief scientist at the Women's and Children's Hospital in Adelaide. Earlier in the week, he had written to me via email, encouraging me to support the bill. He is a constituent of mine in Port Adelaide. He is the son of Alvin Clements, one of the great scientists of Australia. Although his encouragement did not determine my view, I was encouraged nevertheless. I support this bill and I am pleased to do so.21:10:005876Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—In speaking to the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, I commence by saying that, if all our scientific problems were ever solved, all the important questions would remain unanswered in our lives. Attesting to this is the debate on stem cell research which is gripping our federal parliament, as it should. As always, it is not the science itself that I think we find so difficult, but instead it is how we, as a society, use and adjust to new knowledge. Our ignorance of the long-term consequences of our actions is vast and the research that is based on the apparent origins of human life itself is not to be trivialised by any of the participants who come to the debate.At one extreme are those who demean critics of this new research frontier as religious fundamentalists who are hell-bent on making Australia a technological backwater. At the other end are evocations of Nazi experimentation and the apparent murder of human embryos. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that advances in researching adult stem cells offer all of the hope that we might need, and that is what, as the member for Port Adelaide has just said, is at the centre of this: hope, the most fragile yet powerful of human emotions.Stem cell research offers a key that may open the door on the treatment and prevention of human suffering. One million Australians over 25 are living with diabetes. Every hour of the day one of them dies from this frequently debilitating disease. In the same hour four Australians lose their lives to cancer and at least another will succumb to stroke. Within this iceberg of human suffering are 40,000 Australians with Parkinson's disease, characterised by uncontrollable tremor, the loss of movement and the loss of facial expression, which saps life itself. One in 25 of us over the age of 65 suffers Alzheimer's disease, slipping into a world in which we are unknown to those who are left to both love and care for us. Sprinkled throughout the aged nursing homes of this country are many of the 200 Australians each year who are crippled by spinal cord injury and paralysis.The late Trish Langsford, one of my constituents, was an athlete who spent the last years of her life confined to a Sydney nursing home dying from multiple sclerosis, to which she finally succumbed earlier this year. What sustained her in life, as it does now her own parents after her death, was the unshakeable belief in the hope of a cure. What the Prime Minister proposes offers as much sense as it does hope. In the course of in vitro fertilisation, an excess number of embryos are collected. They are currently frozen and kept for several years and then discarded. There are 60,000 such surplus frozen embryos and, with the consent of donating parents, these cells could be used for research. No newly created embryos may be used for three years and all research is to be strictly regulated. If currently discarded embryos can offer hope, especially when an eighth of the embryonic stem cell lines in the world that can be used by US private researchers are here in Australia, then it should proceed and it should proceed with caution. But cloning itself of course should be banned. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research lunged at research made public on 20 June by Catherine Verfaille and subsequently published in Nature on 4 July. It suggested that mesenchymal adult progenitor cells would differentiate into most, if not all, of the cell types when injected into mouse embryos. This, we were told, would render embryonic stem cell research redundant. Dr Verfaille has subsequently pointed out that adult stem cells seem resistant to growing into blood, heart muscle or insulin producing cells. That is, their capacity for differentiation is more limited. Her response to her enthusiastic advocates from the non-scientific community has been that to discontinue research in both stem cell lines would be `morally wrong'.What advocates of adult stem cell research as a substitute for embryonic stem cell research apparently missed in the same edition of Nature was publication of the work by Ron McKay using cultured embryonic stem cells. When dopamine-producing neurones were grafted into the brains of rats with Parkinson's disease, they gave clear behaviour responses and functioned normally. The point is that research using both stem cell lines is important.There is unexpected long-term potential for this research. Earlier this year, workers at the Institute of Child Health in London established an important link between stem cells and cancer cells. Starting with the premise that both stem cells and cancer cells are undifferentiated to some degree and that both cell types have the capability of dividing indefinitely, it is only natural to ask whether research into embryonic stem cells might not be able to teach us something about cancer. By experimenting with very early stage embryos, the team at the Institute of Child Health reported that they had discovered five genes specific to embryos that are usually switched off in adult stem cells. They were then able to show that four out of five of those genes can also be found in various cancers.The good news about adult stem cells is that they have been shown in several recent experiments to have promise in a number of disease areas. Assuming that they can be rendered suitably plastic, they may indeed have advantages over embryonic stem cells as the basis of cell therapies. They are not known to form tumours in the way that embryonic stem cells have been known to do. Also, if cell lines for therapy could be generated from a patient's own cells—which may not be as easy as one would hope—then such cells would not trigger an immune response following transplantation. It may also be that a study of the genetic regulation of adult stem cells is likely to yield more information about the adult body's control of cell growth and repair mechanisms than would be expected from a study of embryonic stem cells.However, adult stem cells are not a panacea, as some would like to believe. To begin with, there is still considerable disagreement as to whether they will provide the answers to all disease questions. But work on adult stem cells, just like that on embryonic stem cells, also faces considerable technical hurdles. For example, in March this year the well-known Stanford biologist Irving Weissman was reported as saying that his research group had been unable to replicate key experiments showing the versatility of adult stem cells. At the same time, scientists from Edinburgh, Oxford and the University of Florida challenged previous work on adult stem cells. They observed that what may have appeared in some experiments as differentiation into specialised cell types may equally have been a bizarre example of adult stem cells fusing with other cells to create a totally new variety of cells with double the expected number of chromosomes that would not necessarily be particularly safe for therapy. Also, it is quite clear that extracting adult stem cells from the human body can be a matter of extreme practical difficulty. Many people would also be aware, as I mentioned, of the work of Catherine Verfaille.There has been concern that the money provided through my portfolio to the national Centre for Stem Cells and Tissue Repair may be used for commercial purposes. Commonwealth funds flowing to the centre will be used to finance work at a number of core public sector research institutions, including six universities, the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute and the Murdoch Institute. In other words, the funding will not be used directly for commercial purposes.Despite the public nature of the enterprise, there is some concern that there must be some commercial imperative here. The centre has formed relationships with key commercial partners. It is the view of this government that public sector research institutions should be encouraged to commercialise their intellectual property since this is a way of fostering new industries, new jobs and other economic outcomes that are beneficial to this country. This is especially true in the medical area, where the costs in taking discoveries from the laboratory to the bedside can be extremely high.There is significance in fostering commercially orientated stem cell research as an enterprise of strategic significance to the Australian economy. There is a long and unillustrious history of countries that turned their backs on technology. The Chinese, once the greatest maritime power in the world, turned their backs on large boats and maritime exploration in the 15th century. The Japanese, once world leaders in firearms manufacturing, did the same with guns in the 17th century. Both countries made these decisions for what they argued to be social or ethical reasons and both suffered economically—and, one could also argue, socially—as a result. If you look at Australia's competitors in the US, public sector research has continued to make advances with the National Institutes of Health permitted cell lines. At the same time, in the US private sector there has been something of a free-for-all. One company, ACT, recently claimed that it had succeeded in creating an early stage embryo via human therapeutic cloning, to which of course I would be most opposed. In the United Kingdom, where there has been excellent regulation of IVF since its inception, work on embryonic stem cells and on therapeutic cloning is permitted. In Singapore, which is trying to position itself as a formidable competitor to Australia in biotechnology, work continues on embryonic stem cells.Some people have claimed that safety considerations with embryonic stem cells should preclude their use—for example, that embryonic stem cells have some capacity for aggregation. In Nature Biotechnology on 5 August this year, it was reported that scientists from the National University of Singapore announced that they had grown embryonic stem cells in a culture medium derived from an aborted foetal tissue. At the moment, human stem cells are grown in a culture medium made from mouse cells, which presents a xenotransplantation risk. There is the risk, for example, that mouse viruses—especially retroviruses, the class of virus in which HIV of course belongs—might be transferred to human cells. Being able to grow stem cells in human tissue culture is a significant advance, bringing potential therapies much closer to clinical use.In concluding, I want to reinforce the fact that research in both stem cell lines is important. Adult stem cell research is no more or less important than research in embryonic stem cells. If wisdom may be described as exercising judgment based on experience, commonsense and available knowledge in the best interests of other human beings, I think the Prime Minister's bill passes the test. Those who bring religious and ethical conviction to this issue are not under any circumstances to be vilified, as some have sought to do this debate. But I also know that Christ spent much of his time on earth curing the sick and healing the lame. Unfortunately, though, for those of us who feel strongly opposed to this kind of research there is no easy solution. Someone is going to suffer irrespective of the outcome of the debate on this legislation. I would argue that it should be those who perhaps deserve to suffer least. As human beings, we all want to get to heaven, but surely we have a responsibility to do what we can here on earth to minimise suffering in the process.21:22:005878Grierson, Sharon, MPMs GRIERSON00AMPNewcastleALP00—I rise to speak on the exceedingly important legislation, the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, which is before the House. But, before I engage in the debate, I wish to acknowledge that this week is Hearing Awareness Week and extend to all my former associates in education and to all hearing impaired children, particularly in Newcastle schools, my sincere expression of support and pride in their collective achievements. To them, have a wonderful week and thank you all for your efforts to raise awareness of what it is like to live and learn in a hearing affected world.I return to the legislation before us today, which stands apart from other legislation because in this debate each member of the House has been extended a conscience vote. This task is one deserving of the full attention of this House and I express my disappointment at the government's decision to refuse continuation of this debate in the main chamber of the people's House. We are individually charged with the duty of considering this legislation by what we consider to be the correct decision for our fellow man. That responsibility is a significant one that cuts straight to the heart of why we as parliamentarians are here, what we consider our role to be and what we wish to achieve for the people we represent. In listening to my colleagues' speeches, I know many of them have risen to that challenge. I congratulate them on their willingness and courage to share with us the personal and sometimes intimate experiences that shape their attitudes and beliefs.In reflecting on my personal position in this debate, I have had to draw on the beliefs and values that guide me in my decision making processes. Those beliefs are really about mankind, because this legislation prompts thinking about the very essence of life. In making my personal decision about this legislation, I have looked to those features that distinguish mankind from all other species, and, for me, it is our cleverness and our compassion that sets us apart. Man's continuing brilliance has steered an amazing course on this planet, one that never ceases to amaze. But the most inspiring and admired feats of all are those arising from compassion, the compassion that produces great deeds of heroism and personal sacrifice to alleviate the suffering of others or to assist them in a particular time of need. In my interpretation, that is what this legislation is about: applying man's brilliance in a compassionate way to improve quality of life and reduce suffering for others; so I support this bill.Part 3 of the legislation provides a regulatory framework for the use of excess embryos for the express purpose of medical research. Those embryos must be excess from assisted reproductive technologies such as the IVF program. Medical research to be carried out using those excess embryos clearly includes the collection of stem cells—as the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, described them, those minute cells smaller than 100th of a pinhead that hold such special hope. Other medical research permitted by the bill includes research that would improve and monitor assisted reproduction technologies. It is important to stress that the embryos that this legislation deals with are ones no longer required by their owners for their original purpose and ones that were in existence before this legislation takes effect. Those particular embryos would also be ones that their original creators and owners have no further use for. Under this legislation, the only people who can decide the fate of those excess embryos are the actual owners and creators. Under this legislation, they will have the choice of donating those embryos to IVF programs to benefit others, authorising the destruction of those excess embryos—that is, allowing those embryos to thaw and lose their viability to become life—or, as this legislation allows, donating those embryos for research.Like many people in our community, I have had the great pleasure of witnessing the joy that a baby resulting from the IVF program can bring to couples, a joy shared by family members and friends of those couples who thought they would never become parents. Dear friends of mine are the parents of the second successful IVF assisted baby born in New South Wales. Their beautiful, talented daughter is now undertaking university studies in Sydney with the proud support of her loving parents. She is indeed a very modern miracle of medical science. I also remember the fears and opposition held by many in our community when the IVF program began. But, fortunately, programs of assisted reproduction technologies are now accepted and well regarded in our community as an application of medical research in a way that benefits others. Just like the early IVF program, this bill too has its opponents. In my electorate, I received over 70 direct and personal representations from constituents who urged me to oppose this legislation. Although that is a position I cannot uphold, I respect their views and am grateful that they took the time and the trouble to consider this issue and to share their views with me. Generally, these constituents shared the opinion that the sanctity of life is an absolute rule that should be applied to life in any form. For them, that means life is created at conception. Certain members of this House have also adhered to this view in the present debate. Although I would agree that conception is a truly amazing event, to me it is not equivalent to life as most of us understand it. I share their view that life is precious and deserves special sanctity and respect, but for me life becomes real when it is sustained, nurtured and, hopefully, loved. Part of that role in sustaining and nurturing life is allowing and assisting it to flourish. This bill provides a way to sustain life, to improve the quality of life and, hopefully, to reduce human suffering. That is the ultimate responsibility that falls upon all of us and especially upon decision makers such as us here in parliament.So, although we have some points of agreement, I cannot completely concur with those who petitioned me to oppose this bill. However, the genuine concern they express for protecting the sanctity of life has prompted me to examine this bill carefully and to address some of their fears. In scrutinising the bill, I am satisfied that it encompasses the necessary sanctions, rules and safeguards that they would rightfully demand from our medical and scientific researchers. The legislation clearly defines prohibited practices which include the creation, exportation or implantation of human embryo clones. Also prohibited is the creation of embryos by methods that do not involve the fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm. Breaches of those prohibited practices would be punishable by imprisonment of terms up to 15 years or monetary penalties of up to $495,000 for corporations and $99,000 for individuals.Most importantly, the legislation establishes the National Health and Medical Research Council as the national regulatory and licensing body, thereby standardising law and practice nationally. The bill also legislates for the establishment of an embryo licensing committee within that council. This committee, sensibly, would comprise representatives with medical, ethical and legal expertise in the area of research centring around assisted reproductive techniques. The committee will also include representatives of health consumers with a special relationship to those techniques and to disability and disease. The requirement that this council must initiate an independent review of the legislation between two and three years after its implementation and then report to the Council of Australian Governments gives further reassurance that ethical practice will be maintained even in the face of rapid research advances.In our society there will be many who remain sceptical about the successful regulation of such an important area of medical research. That is why we need to consider the ethics culture established by our medical and scientific communities. We need to have confidence and trust in that culture, and in my case I do have that trust. I share with the House two specific examples of ethical behaviour demonstrated to me by certain professional researchers. Last week was Science Week and with many of my colleagues I attended the Science Week awards evening here in the marble hall. At that dinner I engaged in conversation with Professor Roger Smith, the Director of the Mothers and Babies Research Centre based at John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle. The Mothers and Babies Research Centre has a particular focus on investigating mechanisms of normal and premature birth and improving health and life of mothers and babies. In our discussion we talked about professional ethics. Professor Smith spoke with me about the sense of duty he and his team of researchers feel towards the people of this country. After all, he explained, the majority of funding they receive comes from the public purse. He shared a personal example explaining that those principles were ones he also had developed as a recipient of a Commonwealth Scholarship. He said the people of Australia had paid for his medical degree and he had always been conscious of repaying that wonderful legacy. Perhaps the previous speaker, the Minister for Education, Science and Training, should note that sense of duty as well as the cleverness and compassion that we have all benefited from. At that dinner I also spoke to a researcher from the Australian National University about the nature of his research and the frustrations that could be experienced when it may take 20 years to obtain credible results. Thinking about this debate that I would be speaking in, I suggested to him that the time taken for his research could be cut if the validity requirements were not so stringent. The horror on his face at my somewhat provocative comment was a joy to behold. It was apparent that such a suggestion was anathema to every principle that guides him in his work and was totally outside his professional thinking. Thank goodness! We are very fortunate in Australia to have such an ethical scientific and medical community. By supporting this legislation we are also supporting the resourcing of those clever minds. We need those clever, compassionate and ethical minds to remain here in Australia. Support for this legislation will support the continuation of their work in our country.Some opponents of the legislation look to the research community and cite their success in adult stem cell research to demonstrate that embryonic stem cell research may be unnecessary. No-one here could be as proud as I am of the work being undertaken by the Hunter Medical Research Institute in Newcastle using adult stem cells taken from the bone marrow of patients with heart damage, patients for whom surgery is not an option. This research is to investigate how well those adult stem cells stimulate new blood vessel growth. This research, if successful, holds great hope for the future. But the researchers themselves are the first to explain that the taking of adult stem cells is a procedure with certain risks. Developing further their research by using embryonic stem cells would be complementary and certainly would allow improvements to the effective future use of adult stem cells.The other major factor that guides my support for this legislation is the need to give hope. Perhaps more than anything else, hope is a gift we owe to those with disease and to those whose quality of life is affected by disability. In this debate we have heard many examples of human suffering and sometimes personal accounts from colleagues who witness and manage that suffering every day. It is incumbent on us here to provide hope for the sufferers of illnesses such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's disease and motor neurone disease. We must also give hope to those whose mobility is affected—hope for the potential therapeutic application of stem cell research to spinal patients with cord damage.From my experiences in education before coming into this House, in particular working with children with disabilities, I know the suffering and hardship they can experience. I also know the courage they display and I certainly know the responsibility we owe to them. I particularly cite the children of the Hunter Orthopaedic School, whose school, as they tell me, is `wheelie good'. Stem cell research may not deliver any change for those children, but to choose not to explore the possibilities of new technologies like stem cell research would be negligent, thoughtless and certainly lacking in compassion.But in this debate it must be stressed that there is no magic wand, no quick fix or instant cure for many of the diseases and disorders I have mentioned. There remains then an obligation and overriding need for extending tolerance and understanding to those in our community who experience disease and medical disorders. That means that we in this House must continue to find inclusive ways to add meaning and value to the lives of those who suffer. It remains our duty to continue to resource programs for holistic health and life management and to provide responsive and accessible medical and social support systems. In fact, the present quality of life of those we seek to help through this legislation is probably more at risk from poor government decisions that fail to pay enough regard or show enough understanding or fail to deliver enough resources for the most vulnerable in our society. That responsibility is in no way diminished by the prospect of new medical research or by the possible passage of this legislation.To debate this bill, I have also asked myself what the government's role really is. I consider that we are here to guide and protect. We are not here to rule or impose but to exercise our power in a way that always builds on the best qualities of mankind. We particularly have the role to legislate in a way that allows man's cleverness and compassion to be applied to improve quality of life and reduce human suffering. Of course we must exercise those roles responsibly. Therefore, I also support the concept put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean, recommending a commission of bioethics. In my discussions last week with scientists and researchers at the Science Week awards dinner, we talked about the national priorities currently being considered by government and by the scientific community. It was suggested to me that the three guiding principles for developing those priorities could be: a healthy life, a healthy environment and a toolbox for success—and, of course, our scientists and medical researchers are part of that toolbox for success. Certainly a bioethics commission as part of that tool box, just like a commission for the environment and for human rights is a direction we need to pursue in this ever-changing world.I would also then like to register my praise for the process followed by the government in developing this legislation—a process that embodied state and federal cooperation, community consultation and genuine parliamentary debate based on individual experiences and values, a process that will eventually lead to a collective and considered decision. That sounds very much like good government to me and I hope we have more of it here.In conclusion, I draw the attention of the House to a letter published in the Newcastle Herald written by a constituent, Don Mackenzie. Don is a former school principal and also a leader in supporting those who suffer from motor neurone disease. He and his wife are the devoted parents and support carers for their son who lives with the challenge of motor neurone disease.In Mr Mackenzie's letter, he states that we here are charged with a conscience vote to vote for or against the use of frozen embryos for research and that each vote will reflect our experiences. He also goes on to say that perhaps we should be guided in our decision by the thinking of Thomas Aquinas—1225-74—who enunciated the principle of `double effect'. In this instance—the instance of making a decision on the legislation before us—the Aquinas principle would allow research using embryos originally created for the purpose of good—the purpose to provide for life. The double effect is to save and improve life. I recommend this principle to the House.Finally, in supporting this legislation, I urge my colleagues on both sides of this House to consider our role, to consider the hope we owe our fellow man, and to consider the support we need to extend to our medical and research community and to then vote for the legislation.21:38:005883Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLP10—In rising to speak in this debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, I do so knowing the passions which have been expressed by people on both sides of the debate. Those passions are very much reflected in correspondence that I have received, both correspondence in the ordinary way and emails arguing for and against the proposition that we should have legislation to permit research on embryonic stem cells. All are in agreement that cloning should be outlawed, and that is what this bill does. The second part of the bill does permit there to be limited research on embryonic stem cells, on embryos that really are produced for one purpose—that is, for IVF—but that can now have a different purpose in that they can be used for research instead of being disposed of because they are simply surplus.In all of the correspondence that I received, for the most part although the expression of how they felt was passionate it was not abusive. There were one or two exceptions to that where people tended to take a point of view that said that there was no room for anybody else to express a point of view. The most moving of the correspondence that I received came from people who were in fact disabled or who were the loved ones and relatives of people who had a debilitating disease or disability. Those letters expressed the wish that we should allow the hope that they saw from this research to be explored with the possibility of finding alleviation for their suffering—not instant; not magic—and allow the hope that it may come perhaps for them or perhaps for someone in the future. Those arguments to me are very persuasive and they are certainly part of the reason why I am supporting this legislation.But then there are other reasons too. In the course of the discussion that we have had among ourselves and among the wider community we decided within our own ranks that we would like to have more information, more scientific information, more people who were deemed experts to speak with us. We had four such people present to a large number of members of the government who were interested in hearing the discussion, and various points of view were put forward. At the end of the day, listening to those presentations did reaffirm a view I had already arrived at—that is, that it is impossible to consider the question of embryonic stem cell research without looking at the whole question of IVF.IVF deliberately produces a surplus of embryos. There is a deliberate decision to do that, knowing that a majority of those embryos that are produced will be destroyed. To say that it is a moral question and that you believe that you can continue to say, `I approve of IVF and yet I disapprove of embryo research on the stem cells,' to me makes no sense at all. It is a long tail.It was pointed out in this discussion that we had that, even if this bill were defeated, it would still be open to scientists to import such embryonic stem cells from overseas and conduct research on those stem cells. However, the intellectual property in any research and any outcomes that resulted from that research would have to be returned to the owners of the cells that were imported. If you decide that it is immoral to conduct the research then presumably you would have to follow a course that said you would need to legislate to say you may not import embryonic stem cells into this country for the purposes of research. Presumably, those who argue that way would also say that anybody who left these shores to go to another country where it was legal to conduct such research would themselves be judged immoral. Presumably, if they found, as a result of the research, some form of treatment that could alleviate one of those diseases that have been mentioned by so many in the debate or disabilities then the question for them would be: would to utilise that treatment also be immoral? It has a very long tail.I respect the opinion of those people who have decided to vote against this legislation. But for me there is the need for recognition of those people who want the right to hope that from allowing such research may come an outcome that will alleviate their or some other individual's suffering. The logic of the argument of simply saying, `You can look at this question in isolation,' to me does not hold true.The second argument that came out of that discussion we had was whether or not research on adult stem cells was adequate. Whether you could, in fact, not address the question of embryonic stem cells because really you could do it all with adult stem cells just was not borne out in the arguments that were presented. There were people who were on the panel that spoke to us who were researchers on adult stem cells and one of them said that he believed that for the research to be truly beneficial you needed both and that they needed to complement one another.I conclude my contribution to this debate by saying that it is a very difficult area, that the idea that any legislation should permit the production of embryos for the purpose of harvesting those stem cells to me would be an anathema. I believe this bill is sufficient to prevent and to outlaw that occurring, just as it outlaws cloning. This is one of those debates where the fact that all of us have been granted a conscience vote and the opportunity to do personal research and to listen to arguments has been undertaken seriously by all who are participating in the debate. Those people who have put up a strong point of view and, at the end of the day, are unsuccessful will no doubt be disappointed. But because of the nature of our democratic society, where we do have the opportunity to speak freely, to listen to arguments and debates—scientific and moral—at the end of the day we do have to make up our minds. It is a mark of the maturity of this country that we are able to do precisely this. And I repeat: I respect the point of the view of those who hold a different point of view from the one I hold. But on the balance of both—the science I have heard, the logic that has been displayed and that need for hope and compassion for those in need—I support the bill.21:48:005884Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—This debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is an important one for our society. It is also a difficult debate because stem cell research is located at the frontier of modern scientific discovery. My constituents in the electorate of Banks have been upfront in letting me know what they think of this bill. As you might expect, there is a variety of views. Some people support stem cell research; others have written to me to oppose it. I have taken all these different views into consideration in determining how I will vote on this issue. I have followed the debate in the press and I have spoken to colleagues and experts. As any member of this House would agree, there has been a lot of information flying around on both sides of the argument. After looking at all the evidence and considering all the arguments, I have decided that in all good conscience I should vote in favour of this bill. I say `in all good conscience' because I believe it would be wrong to deny individuals in our community the opportunity to benefit from this sort of scientific and medical discovery. That is not to deny the importance of the arguments that have been mobilised in opposition to stem cell research, but I am convinced that the safeguards and limitations imposed by the bill offer adequate protection for those concerns.The knowledge that can be gained from this sort of research may make an enormous difference to our community. It may make a difference to people like Dr Paul Brock, a man I am proud to count as one of my good friends. Paul has made a significant contribution to shaping our school education system as a teacher, academic and policy adviser. His lifelong commitment to education continues through his work at the New South Wales Department of Education and Training. Last Friday, he was awarded the Sir Harold Wyndham Medal by the Australian College of Educators for his great contribution to education in Australia. Paul also has motor neurone disease, a disease which has radically changed his life and the lives of his wife, Jackie, and their young daughters, Sophia, aged 11, and Amelia, aged seven. Paul is a man who played representative and grade cricket until the age of 45, a man who comfortably swam 40 laps of the pool and took a round of golf in his stride. Motor neurone disease has changed all that.Today, in Paul's own words, he is a man who relies on his family and a team of carers to look after his every need. From the moment he wakes up in the morning until the bed clothes are pulled up at night, Paul relies on other people. He now faces the terrifying prospect of all-encompassing paralysis of his body, although, cruelly, the paralysis will not affect his brain and his consciousness until he suffocates and dies. There is no known cure. On average, people with this dreadful disease survive only two years after diagnosis. That is why people like Paul pin all their hopes on researchers finding new ways to reverse or stop the disease. Embryonic and adult stem cell research, together, hold out the real prospect of slowing, reversing and curing motor neurone disease. This is not just a shot in the dark; it is a very real prospect. We know this because of recent exciting research on motor neurones in mice using embryonic stem cell lines in the laboratory. In opening the debate for the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean, outlined the federal Labor Party's policy of supporting embryonic stem cell research. Firstly, he noted that support for embryonic stem cell research does not amount to support for human cloning. Secondly, the policy supports research only on embryos created for IVF purposes and which otherwise would be destroyed. Thirdly, the policy supports stem cell research only with the specific consent of the IVF donor. Finally, it supports therapeutic research only where there is a real likelihood of a significant advance in knowledge. With all this in mind, along with the reality of the lives and hopes of people like Paul Brock, I have concluded that I must support this bill. If embryonic and adult stem cell research can help Paul and the many thousands like him who suffer from debilitating conditions, then the prospect of significant advances in knowledge is an opportunity that our society should not miss.21:54:005885Ley, Sussan, MPMs LEY00AMNFarrerLP10—I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I say at the outset that I support the bill, but I do so with some hesitation. I found it very difficult to reach this decision. I take no satisfaction in reaching the conclusions that I have. I do not enthusiastically embrace the bill. I am conscious that this vote will not express the views of everyone in my electorate. This issue arouses a great deal of emotion and the emotion is deeply felt and sometimes put very forcibly.Although I have listened carefully to all of the views that have been expressed, I cannot allow myself to be persuaded by the strength alone of some of those views, nor by what I may perceive to be the numbers of people on either side of the argument. I have said that a vote of conscience means that I represent the conscience of the whole electorate; I wish that I could be certain of doing that. If each person who approached me had spent the time that I have—that we all have in this place—closely examining the bill, its explanatory memorandum and all the arguments put by all the experts, I cannot be sure that they would still hold the views that they do. Of course, many of them would. But my own view has changed along the way, and I have spent hours coming to terms with the uncertainty of it all.As a member of this parliament, I must represent my electorate. On this occasion, my approach has been to keep in mind the family values we all share, to recognise the opportunity that this science affords us, to be aware of the strong safeguards that we must impose and that this bill does impose, and to appreciate the responsibility that we have to advance medical technology in a way that relieves suffering. As an elected member of parliament, it is my job to do what I think is right. Years hence, I want to look back and say that I made the decision that I believed to be in the interests of my electorate and society as a whole, and that I made the decision that most closely accorded with my own conscience on this matter. But I am much more comfortable analysing bills relating to taxation, economics or regional policy. In these fields, using the analytical tools with which I was trained, I can apply my knowledge, deal with facts and arrive at a carefully reasoned conclusion. If I need more information, I can go in search of it. This debate is not like that. No-one is able to supply information in the usual sense. No-one is able to provide the answers, or there is so much disagreement about the answers that both arguments must be disregarded or at least left open. As we see with economists, it is clear that two schools of scientific thought have difficulty reaching agreement. It has been very difficult for me, when faced with two conflicting arguments from experts, to determine which has greater merit.However, I do accept that this field of science holds enormous potential. It is in its early stages, yes. It will encounter hurdles and setbacks and moments of breathtaking excitement which will come to nought. Science, I have learned, is most often a slow, exhausting, creeping forward—one step forward, two steps back. We cannot predict the results of this research. It took more than 30 years to do the research that replaced bone marrow transplants with a faster, safer, cheaper and less stressful treatment delivery. The Australian bionic ear now provides hearing to over 20,000 profoundly deaf people in more than 50 countries. It took 18 years to develop to practical use.Exciting vistas are opening up in the fields of modern biotechnology. After we discovered the shape of DNA as a double helix and decoded the genetic code universal for all life on the planet, we were then able to move genes around at will. Genetic engineering, as it is called, not only enormously speeds up basic biological research but also allows the manufacture of precious human proteins by harmless bacteria or yeasts, opening up new therapeutic possibilities. Techniques for sequencing the building blocks of genes are moving forward rapidly. Automation, robotics, miniaturisation and advanced information technology made gene sequencing fast and cheap. Knowing the full sequence of the human genome provides a dictionary of all genes, allows us to understand more fully human diversity and creates a whole new range of targets for drug discovery. So what does this actually mean for us? Is it scientists playing around with the building blocks of human life, a fun-filled adventure tour through what it takes to make us human or a voyeuristic look at the greatest secrets the human race possesses? Not at all. All prescription pharmaceuticals modulate some biochemical reaction. As the genes' codes are gradually unravelled, it becomes clearer which metabolic pathway has gone wrong in a particular disease and which biochemical checkpoint needs to be inhibited or enhanced by the new pharmaceutical. Diagnosis will become more precise and will allow a more sophisticated analysis of the diseases to which a person's genes may indicate a predisposition. I use this example of the human genome, not because it has used embryonic stem cells but to illustrate two things: that science does have possibilities for curing disease that we cannot yet comprehend and that we are already studying the mysterious forces that are at work, describing and determining our genetic make-up.I have approached this issue with the following principles: I will try not to judge and I will not be a hypocrite. There is no place for either in a debate about principles. I wish to make it clear that I am a committed Christian, a person, I think it would be fair to say, of more conservative values than many of my contemporaries. At the same time I recognise that we live in a pluralist society and that the views that I firmly hold are not the views of everyone. There is sometimes a vast difference between the outlook of, say, the farmers of western New South Wales and the cafe latte terrace house dwellers of inner Sydney. But I remember that the children of the farmers live in Sydney and the terrace dwellers retire to the bush. Apart from wishing that more of the city came out west to learn what we are all about, I welcome our diversity and our differences and the fact that we can all learn from one another. I have had many approaches by way of emails, letters and personal representations and I have listened with great care to all of them. To those who are hoping that I would reach a different conclusion I say, I am sorry. I have found little comfort in reaching this decision but more comfort than in the alternative. I think we need to say that society, its people and its science have reached a point where there seems to be value in the use of embryonic stem cells, so it is up to society and its legislators to put in place the necessary guidelines to allow this to happen. We should examine the merits of what is proposed, as we are doing. The strict guidelines this bill imposes show that we recognise that this is difficult territory and that we need to proceed with extreme caution. But proceed we must. Let us have faith in our own ability and our own sense of the way ahead. I have great faith in my fellow men and women. The way we teach our children about right and wrong, the way our character defines how we behave in certain situations, and the attitude we take to helping our fellow man in times of trouble—all these things are unrelated to any legislation of this or any other parliament. I am not one who believes that this legislation will start us on a slippery slope to breeding embryos for science. Society and those charged with the responsibility of guarding its morals and ethics do so largely without the benefit of legislation. This legislation contains careful safeguards, but there are other safeguards in place. There are ethics committees with religious representation that consider all scientific research by our institutions. These are the formal safeguards imposed by the bill. More importantly, there are deeply personal attitudes and value systems of the practitioners of medicine, IVF and other reproductive technologies. I have been surprised to find that some people seem to have an image of scientists rampaging all over normal ethical considerations, determined to create cloned humans, experiment on embryos and collect big dollars from drug companies. This is not what I have found. The debate has given me the opportunity to meet many scientists and medical specialists, and I know they are deeply committed to the work they do and the patients they treat every day. Were an immoral embryologist to emerge, he or she would not continue, because of the integrity we have in our systems and in our institutions. Scientists have discussed with me their own moral code, their own line that they would not cross. That line may not be the same for all of us but it broadly corresponds to the line which society as a whole will not cross.I believe that those to whom God bestows great capability have a responsibility to use their talents in the service of others to benefit humanity. I believe that our scientists and medical specialists have been given gifts of investigation, exploration and healing. The power they have is a gift from God and it has been given to them to use for the good of all.I am a supporter of the IVF program. I have seen the great joy that children bring and the awful sadness that couples experience when children do not come. Some biological problems may prevent a woman from falling pregnant naturally. I do not think that seeking treatment for this is different from seeking treatment for any other condition. We all know the pain that can be experienced by childless couples. I cannot accept a train of thought that says that IVF is wrong and some women were not meant to have children. The same logic might say that people with cancer were meant to get ill, suffer and die, so treatment should be withheld. Having children is often the best thing ever to happen in a person's life—I know it was in mine—so I support IVF because it is real and positive and it gives life. This is why I believe that it is a key feature of this bill that all the embryos used are connected with the IVF program. They are here because parents who wished to have children created them to be their children. I would love to see each and every one of these embryos become a wanted child. Nothing would give me greater pleasure. I would not mind at all that we had no embryos whose future to discuss. But this is not possible under current IVF techniques. Embryos are created and only certain ones are implanted. Others are not. The parents whose embryos these are then decide their future.I know that if my husband or parents or children could be helped by technology that develops from stem cell research then I would want them to have that help and not to suffer a condition or illness that could be treated. I would want it even for those who will not support me in this issue and who may withdraw their support when I vote for this bill. I want Australian scientists with Australian ethics committees to work in Australian institutions where I know their commitment and dedication will produce good results for all mankind. I do not believe that any one of us has not confronted intensely personal feelings in arriving at our decisions. The emotion expressed in many of the speeches has been very moving. As the World War I poet Sigfried Sasson said after his experiences in the trenches:It is only from the inmost silences of the heart, that we know the world for what it is and ourselves for what the world has made us.In the end, no matter how much literature you read from peer reviewed medical journals and no matter how much you speak to the experts, your colleagues, your constituents or your family and friends, eventually you look to the quietness of your own heart to try to get at the truth. I have tried to do this and I will vote for this bill.22:06:005888Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I am one of those people who has changed his position on this matter over the course of the past few months as public debate has intensified. I say at the outset that, whatever my position on the two components covered by the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, there are two separate and distinct issues involved. The two areas under consideration—namely, research involving embryos and the prohibition of cloning—are two matters requiring separate consideration. There is no way that anyone opposing embryonic stem research can vote against this bill without also opposing a prohibition of human cloning. This bill must be divided, with a separate vote allowed on each issue. It is a nonsense to suggest that there should be a specific conscience vote on separation of the bills. It is a procedural matter. The government, as the proponent of this legislation, should never have presented the bill in the form it is, creating the conflict it has for those who wish to oppose part and support part of this existing bill. If the amendments circulated by the member for Dunkley are regarded as a way around this matter then everyone in this House should adopt them. If those who so rarely get a chance to exercise their conscience want such a vote for the thrill of independence it gives them, then so be it, but one would think it would be carried unanimously on the voices without the need for any division. As an Independent, every vote I take is a conscience vote. Indeed, I am often wrestling with the issue at stake as I walk down the stairs towards the chamber for any division. On this matter, stem cell research, I have also wrestled with the ethical issues, as no doubt others in this parliament have done, particularly those who may not necessarily have a deep religious conviction. I was originally reasonably comfortable with the Prime Minister's position—the position this bill represents—although I have always had difficulty with the need to destroy excess IVF embryos. Earlier on in the year I wrote to constituents answering many inquiries, saying that I supported the position the bill represented. After more reading, more listening and more research, I adjusted my response to say that, while still essentially supporting the Prime Minister's position, I intended to re-read as much material as possible before making a final decision. A fortnight ago I finally came to a decision that indeed I could not support embryonic stem cell research after being persuaded by compelling arguments that it is totally unnecessary to destroy a living embryo to achieve the sorts of medical breakthroughs that have been quite wrongly promised to the desperately ill or handicapped as highly likely but which at best are promising. Indeed, as I have discovered in my reading and re-reading, the most promising and ethically acceptable outcomes have been achieved with adult stem cells. Last week I began sending the following letter to those constituents who had contacted me urging my support for embryonic stem cell research because it offered a chance for them or a loved one with severe disability. The letter states:Over recent months I have spent a lot of time reading the arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research. Initially, I was persuaded by the argument that embryonic research offered the best means of developing cures and treatments for a range of disabilities. I was reasonably comfortable with the Prime Minister's position, detailed in April, that any embryonic research would be restricted to “left over” embryos from the IVF program. Indeed I wrote to constituents saying I would support restricting research to surplus IVF embryos, but pointed out that the only real breakthrough research to date had occurred with adult stem cells. However in subsequent letters to other constituents I added that I intended to re-read as much material as possible before making a final decision. I have done that, and listened to arguments and experts for and against embryo research and finally reached a conclusion that I cannot agree to the use of embryos.Over the past month or so, I tried to set the increasingly emotional rhetoric of this debate aside and have a hard look at the available evidence. I have come to the conclusion that research into adult stem cells is proving more productive than research involving embryos, and I have grave concerns about the destruction of human embryos whether excess IVF or not.Although for the moment we are debating the restriction of research to excess IVF embryos, such research is at the edge of cloning. IVF embryos are used for research but not at this stage for human therapy. If an embryonic stem cell were injected into a patient it would most probably be rejected by the patient's immune system.Some scientists (including Professor Alan Trounson) suggest making a clone of the patient to extract stem cells. These could then be injected into the patient without the risk of rejection, or cancerous consequences. If the clone was allowed to continue developing in a womb a baby would be born. Some scientists say that making a clone to extract stem cells (`therapeutic cloning') is different and therefore more acceptable from making a clone to grow a baby. But there is no denying in the case of therapeutic cloning that the embryo, a human, would be created for the specific purpose of pulling it apart. I cannot accept that, particularly when adult stem cell research is showing that non-rejectable stem cells from the patient's own body are delivering promising research outcomes with none of the accompanying ethical and moral dangers.Despite the promise of cures for disabilities and illnesses from embryonic stem cells, no successful treatment has yet been found for human conditions. In discussions with eminent scientists in this field, including Professor William Hurlbut of Stanford University (whose son in fact has oxygen-denied brain damage) and Dr David Prentice, Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University, I am satisfied as best as I can be that the destructive use of embryos is not necessary to search for cures. If research with embryos continued and a possible breakthrough was discovered, the existing “stock” of surplus IVF embryos would not be sufficient and extra ones, possibly many thousands, could only be obtained by farming or cloning. This is the “crossing of the line”, the “slippery slope”, that I don't want to be part of.Stem cell research is in its infancy. However the recently discovered “ultimate stem cell” isolated from bone marrow is believed by many researchers to have all the properties of an embryonic cell (i.e. it is as plastic and able to be manipulated into a variety of tissue reproductions). Adult Stem Cell research appears far more promising, with beneficial results having been obtained in humans with juvenile diabetes, immune deficiency or needing corneal repair.If embryonic stem cells could be derived by a method other than destruction of human embryos then I would have no objection. However at this stage I am more than satisfied Adult Stem Cells offer the required research opportunities to hopefully develop cures for a variety of illnesses and handicaps.Which brings us to surplus IVF embryos held in storage. Why not use them if they are destined for destruction anyway? While I have friends who've had children through the IVF program, I have always been concerned at the necessity of creating embryos in excess of requirements. I am also similarly concerned at the use of aborted foetuses for research. The destruction of surplus embryos for experiment or cell harvest represents a crossing of an ethical line, which I am not prepared to countenance. Despite the ban on cloning in this legislation, I believe it would be difficult to withstand the pressure from the scientific community and associated interests such as pharmaceutical companies to be allowed to make embryos for no other purpose than to destroy them to harvest cells. On the other hand Professor David Prentice tells me that freezing eggs, not embryos, is now regarded as the most likely development in IVF research, obviating the need for any embryo storage.That would leave adult stem cells (including bone marrow, umbilical cord blood etc.) as the most ethical and indeed the promising source of research material and potential medical breakthroughs. The letter to my constituents continues:I appreciate very much your personal concerns, and the circumstances that would bring you to a contrary view to mine. I must say though that I have heard much in this debate about the promise stem cell research offers the ill and disabled. Much of this I believe has been exaggerated and, as I have said, any promising outcomes so far have come from adult stem cell research. I can only hope that you begin to understand the effort I have made to reach a considered conclusion on this difficult issue. My conscience is clear on this matter and it will truly be a conscience vote I make.I include several pages of background information you may care to read. I am more than happy to discuss any points you may wish to raise with me.That was the letter I sent out to those who urged me to support this legislation. I certainly support that part of the bill banning human cloning, but I have made it quite clear why I do not support the allowance of embryonic stem cell research.Most of the arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research have already been well canvassed in this debate. I want to add some general comments and note statements from state premiers that this bill was a result of an agreement between the states and the Commonwealth. Indeed, the New South Wales Premier has promised that he will go it alone and introduce his own legislation if indeed this legislation is defeated. Mr Carr can, of course, exercise that right, as well as his right to arrogantly attack opponents of embryonic stem cell research as some sort of fringe fanatics. But this parliament, as the pre-eminent legislative chamber of the Commonwealth, should never take directions from the states or a state Premier as to what legislation it should or should not pass. I am concerned that after his announcement approving embryonic stem cell research on IVF embryos created prior to 5 April, the Prime Minister moved right along to announce that the Centre for Stem Cells and Tissue Repair based at Monash and run by the leading proponent of embryo research, Professor Alan Trounson, would receive $43.55 million over four years. This announcement was made before this bill was even presented to the parliament, before the legislators—that is, us—had a chance to debate this contentious matter. It was made quite clear that the centre will be undertaking research using adult and embryonic stem cells. The unacceptable practices disallowed by this legislation will include the creation of embryos using somatic cell nuclear transfer. Yet I note the latest stem cell update from Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development excitedly promotes the increasing interest in this technology, even though, as I say, it is not to be allowed by this legislation. I am disturbed by the questions now being asked about Professor Trounson's claims. His so-called `trump card video' showing a crippled rat walking is in fact a video showing a rat injected with germ cells from aborted foetuses, not embryonic stem cells, as claimed by Professor Trounson at a briefing for MPs and press, which I attended in this place last week. In fact, Dr David Prentice from Indiana State University told another gathering of MPs a week or so ago, which I also attended, that this video—which incidentally and symbolically froze in the frame and would not move for Professor Trounson's PowerPoint presentation—had been doing the rounds of Congress for some time with the same false claims. These are the sorts of claims that bedevil this debate and offer false hope to people suffering from severe illness and handicap, people such as Kathy Ingwersen from my own electorate. She was rendered a quadriplegic in a riding accident two years ago and understandably, based on the promises of medical breakthroughs, is critical of my objection to embryonic stem cell research. I believe an editorial that accompanied a front page story about Mrs Ingwersen in the Bathurst Western Advocate today got it right when it said:Supporters of embryonic stem cell research say that many potential lives which are currently frozen in time as embryos will be discarded anyway. That may be true, but the question which remains is whether creating and using embryos to improve an existing life is as ethical as creating embryos to begin the miracle of life.As I said, there has been much unsubstantiated hope engendered by certain vested interests in talking up the chances of medical breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells. The head of molecular bioscience at the University of Adelaide, Peter Rathjen, says that `it's a bloody nonsense' that stem cells might be able to cure Alzheimer's. Also, the University of Melbourne's mental health research neuroscientist Colin Masters says:Stem cell people might have an argument for replacing dead cells in traumas like stroke or spinal injuries but in diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's it is beyond our imagination.As some speakers in this debate have pointed out, there is a massive commercial stake in this research beyond the purely altruistic research for the good of mankind.Finally, in a scenario not dissimilar to the genetic engineering of plants debate, many of the stem lines—and you can substitute GM seed stock for plants here—are in the hands of private companies, including pharmaceutical giants—and you can substitute chemical companies in the GM context. During an inquiry into primary producer access to gene technology by a committee of this parliament of which I was a member, I prepared a dissenting report, strongly influenced as I was by comments from the British Medical Association and the Australian Medical Association. The AMA told the inquiry the jury is still out on the benefits and risks of genetically modified foods for public health and the environment, while the British Medical Association said there are all sorts of things we do not know about genetic modification of crops and food. In that dissenting report I called for a moratorium of five years on the development of GMOs in Australia to enable adequate independent research to be carried out on the health and environmental impacts and consumer demand.As with the GM industry, I believe there are massive and powerful commercial interests involved in this stem cell research debate. But here we are dealing with embryos, which I happen to believe begin their human journey at conception, and I cannot support destruction for experimental purposes when, at this stage, more promising alternative adult stem cells are available. It must be remembered that a stem cell has been found in adult bone marrow that scientists believe can turn into all types of tissue needed to repair damaged bodies and can be grown indefinitely in the laboratory without ageing. The GM crop report of this parliament was called Proceed with caution. Indeed, we should do exactly that with stem cell research and restrict it to adult stem cells. One of the contributors to this debate said something to the effect that it was time for those with traditional moral values to move aside, that it was time to move on, that the time for prophets and wise men has passed. I am not a traditional moralist, I am not a churchgoer and I do not find comfort in any particular religion—indeed, religion is the root cause of most of this planet's misery—but I do believe that life begins at conception and I believe it is wrong for another human being to destroy that life deliberately for whatever purpose, whether it is embryonic stem cell research or capital punishment.I did and do support the right for a person to end his or her life via euthanasia, if the pain of existence is too great and their decision is rationally taken. In that sense, I am not a traditional moralist. I can only support abortion if the mother's life is endangered. I have said I am most uncomfortable with the destruction of excess IVF embryos and I look forward to the technology that Dr David Prentice says is at hand that will obviate the need for a bank of frozen embryos.I do not know when the soul, spirit or essential humanity enters the being, but if we need conception to begin the life path then, ipso facto, it is then that life begins. We have reached a point in our human development where science dictates—where the vast majority of we lay people are basically forced to trust the scientist because he or she knows best. Scientists are divided on this issue. Who do we trust? I trust my instinct and I note the words of one scientist whom I might be prepared to trust—not a high flier or one with vested interests, as far as I know.Dr Peter McCullagh is honorary associate of the Faculty of Veterinary Science at University of Sydney. His guess is that in 20 years stem cell transplantation may be obsolescent. He further suggests that researchers will discover how to activate those stem cells already in place in patient's tissues without removing them. He quotes the late Michael Polanyi, a professor of chemistry at Manchester University:In the days when an idea could be silenced by showing that it was contrary to religion, theology was the greatest single source of fallacies. Today, when any human thought can be discredited as unscientific, the power exercised previously by theology has passed over to science; hence science has become the greatest single source of error.I am not prepared to step across that line and allow an error of ethics to occur. We have a viable and ethical alternative to embryonic stem cells in adult stem cells, and it is to this we should be directing our research effort and resources in the interests of all those with disabilities. In the meantime, we might even free up resources for those hundreds of millions around the world who will never enjoy the benefits of Western medical research and who are battling diseases long controlled in the West on top of poverty and exploitation of labour and resources. I reject part 2 of this bill and support part 3, and I call on the government through the parliament to allow me to express both these views with separate votes.22:26:005893Panopoulos, Sophie, MPMs PANOPOULOS00AMUIndiLP10—This momentous and important debate does strike at the very heart of our cultural values. It is an important debate because the vote will be determined not along traditional party lines but according to the beliefs of each and every member. It is an opportunity for members of this House to speak their minds not on an issue related to economic minutiae or party politics but rather about our society's standards and ethics. It is a debate about where we are prepared to draw the line in a brave new world.It is a privilege and a moral responsibility to contribute to the debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 in this place. There are thousands of Australians who I am sure would like to swap places with me here tonight. Over the last four months I have painstakingly considered the arguments on both sides of this important debate. As a legislator, I have asked myself the question: what sort of world do I want to live in and what sort of legacy do I want for our future generations? I know that the decision I have made I will be proud of in 20 years time. I have been honest with myself in my deliberations and concluded that, as a member of the federal parliament, I cannot sanction the idea that some lives are more important than others.This bill is concerned with life at the embryonic stage. Whether we are dealing with life at the stages of creation and early formation or whether we are dealing with life after birth, the principles that are to be applied should be consistently applied. If we value human life and say that it is not for any one of us to judge the worth of any life then it is consistent to oppose experimentation on human embryos. Time and time again in this debate we have heard that the surplus embryos in storage are going to die anyway. This argument is an affront to human dignity and in direct confrontation to the age old medical and research ethic of Hippocrates to `do no harm'. We do not simply allow those burdened with injury, frailty, disability or illness to be experimented on or treated like lab animals because they do not have what some would consider an adequate quality of life or because they are going to die anyway. All the debate about research on embryonic stem cells is couched in language of the benefits that `might' or `could' accrue from such research. But research that `might' save lives is pointless if it destroys innocent lives in the process. As a society, we have always afforded a greater respect and dignity for human life than this. The deliberate destruction of embryos for scientific and corporate gain represents a greedy attack on human life. We should very carefully consider the implications of this bill and the far-reaching consequences that will flow from it.The New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, has stated that those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are:... grovelling to the most unapologetic, antiscientific views in the community.I simply do not believe that it is antiscientific to expect scientists to operate within the practical and ethical constraints of society. Scientists, like the rest of us, need to operate within acceptable ethical boundaries. The limits we place on our actions and interactions are the foundations of a civilised society. Every society needs to draw the line.We should remember the financial side of this debate, as Senator Boswell pointed out recently. The member for Warringah has spoken of the sovereignty of scientists and their vested commercial interests in this debate. Like him, I too reject the sovereignty of scientists' arguments and I strongly urge my fellow parliamentarians to recognise the financial goldmine that will be inherited by scientists through the deliberate destruction of human embryos for scientific exploitation. That is not the first time—and, unfortunately, I doubt it will be the last—in which we will be dragged along and pass legislation in a scientific arena before we know the true facts.Through this legislation, we are entering dangerous territory and showing little regard for the ethical minefield we are creating. Once the destruction of human embryos for scientific research becomes the norm, we will enter a new era which questions the validity of other forms of human life. Where will this debate take us once this line has been crossed? What will scientists demand once they have exhausted the current supply of unwanted IVF embryos? Will those lobbyists in favour of embryonic stem cell research come back to parliament in a year's time arguing that millions of dollars have been invested in such research and that they need more embryos harvested? Should this bill pass both houses, it would sadden me to think that in 20 years time, when we will have progressed further down the slippery path which this bill will establish, we will look back on this time and ask ourselves how we, as a parliament, sanctioned experimentation on human life in its early stages.Embryos are more than a mere cluster of cells. They signify the beginning of a new life, the start of a whole new human biography. They are at least worthy of more recognition and respect than they are given in the current fashionable argument to kill them because they are going to die anyway. I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 10.32 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing5895The following answers to questions were circulated:5895(Question No. 449)4495895Rudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd83TGriffithALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 June 2002:Which countries have you visited since becoming Prime Minister and in each instance what was the (a) date and (b) purpose of the visit.5895Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 19962-5 SeptemberMarshall IslandsSouth Pacific Forum16-21 SeptemberIndonesia, JapanBilateral Visits22-26 NovemberPhilippinesAPEC199715-17 FebruaryNew ZealandAnnual Aust/NZ Prime Ministerial Talks26 March - 2 AprilSingapore, ChinaBilateral Visits17 June - 3 JulyUnited Kingdom, USABilateral Visits17-20 SeptemberCook IslandsSouth Pacific Forum21-30 OctoberUnited Kingdom, IndonesiaBilateral Visit to UK and Indonesia and attendance at Edinburgh CHOGM22-27 NovemberCanadaAPEC199823-26 AprilThailandBilateral Visit15-19 NovemberKuala LumpurAPEC199920-22 FebruaryNew ZealandAnnual Aust/NZ Prime Ministerial Talks26-27 AprilIndonesiaBilateral Visit5-18 JulyJapan, USABilateral Visits10-13 SeptemberNew ZealandAPEC7-8 OctoberPapua New GuineaBilateral Visit11-16 NovemberSouth AfricaAttendance at Durban CHOGM200021 April - 4 MayTurkey, France, Israel,Bilateral visits to Turkey, France, Israel and the Palestinian Authority and attended ANZAC Day Ceremony at Gallipoli18-21 MayRepublic of KoreaBilateral Visit7-9 JuneJapan Obuchi Memorial Service3-12 JulyUnited Kingdom, IndiaBilateral visit to UK and Australia Week in London (Centenary of UK passage of Australian Constitution)4-8 SeptemberUSAAttendance at UN Millennium Summit and Commonwealth High Level Review Group Leader's Meeting 27-30 OctoberKiribatiSouth Pacific Forum 15-17 NovemberBruneiAPEC200124-26 FebruaryNew ZealandAnnual Aust/NZ Prime Ministerial Talks2-4 AugustJapanBilateral Visit12-14 AugustIndonesiaBilateral Visit8-14 SeptemberUSABilateral Visit19-22 OctoberChinaAPEC2002 (as at 17 August 2002)28 Jan-8 FebUSA, IndonesiaWorld Economic Forum and Indonesian Bilateral Visit 18-23 MarchUKCommonwealth Leaders' Committee Meeting on Zimbabwe7-11 AprilUKFuneral of HM the Queen Mother18-24 MayEast Timor, ChinaAttend East Timor Independence Celebrations and Bilateral Visit to China8-15 JuneUSABilateral Visit30 June-13 JulyGermany, Greece, Italy and BelgiumBilateral Visits13-14 AugustPapua New GuineaBilateral Visit and Isurava Memorial Dedication14-17 AugustFijiPacific Islands Forum5896(Question No. 511)5115896O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr Brendan O'Connor00AN3BurkeALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 17 June 2002:Are the Centrelink services in Sunbury, Vic., being reduced; if so, in what particular ways are these reductions occurring, and when will the reductions occur.5896Anthony, 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:No.The Sunbury office is due for imminent relocation to a nearby purpose built facility (immediately behind the current building) in mid to late September 2002 which will increase its size from 425 square metres to 900 square metres. This will provide for an increase in size of the self help area, and dedicated interview and seminar rooms.From September, Centrelink will be appointing a Personal Adviser, as well as increasing psychologist servicing in the office.5896(Question No. 565)5655896Emerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson83VRankinALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 June 2002:(1) What is the total value of incentives offered under the Strategic Investment Coordination Program to date.(2) What projects have been offered assistance under the Program to date and what was the level and composition of each of the assistance packages.(3) How many projects have been offered accelerated depreciation under the Program.(4) Which projects have received assistance and what sum has each received.(5) What is the total value of concessions offered under the Program for accelerated depreciation.(6) Are there any projects that have received assistance under the Program of which the Strategic Investment Coordinator has recommended against supporting.(7) What criteria are employed in assessing applications under the Program.(8) How many applications have been rejected.5896Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There is no Strategic Investment Coordination Program as such. Decisions on strategic investment incentives are made on a case-by-case basis in response to a recommendation by the Strategic Investment Coordinator. The Strategic Investment Coordinator only brings recommendations forward if the project meets the criteria outlined at Attachment 1. $663.766 million in incentives have been offered on the recommendation of the Strategic Investment Coordinator.(2) The following projects have been offered an incentive on the recommendation of the Strategic Investment Coordinator. ProjectIncentive OfferedDelivery MechanismAmount Paid to/ Benefit Accrued by Company as at 31 July 2002Visy Pulp and Paper Mill$36.05mGrant and programmes$29.863mSyntroleum$70m $40m loan and $30m licence purchase$15.0mIBM Asia Pacific e-Business & Innovation Centre$3.216mGrant$2.4mHolden Aluminium Engine Plant$12.5mR&D and Training Grant$8.5mAsia Pacific Space Centre$100mGrant and Infrastructure$1.497mComalco Alumina Refinery$137mLoanNilHIsmelt Direct Iron Reduction Plant$125mGrantNilMethanex Syngas and Methanol Plant$85mGrantNilIn addition, crude oil excise rates were amended at a projected cost of $95 million following a recommendation from the Strategic Investment Coordinator. The total excise revenue forgone as at 31 July 2002 was $56 million.(3) None.(4) See Question 2 table for payments to, or benefits accrued by, companies as of 31 July 2002. (5) Nil.(6) No. However, as is normal for government, there have been occasions where assistance has been provided outside the Strategic Investment Coordination process to projects of particular merit. On two occasions, assistance has been provided outside the Strategic Investment Coordination process for projects that had been assessed as not meeting the criteria for an incentive. The projects in question were Australian Magnesium Corporation's proposed magnesium smelter at Stanwell in Queensland and Mitsubishi Australia's proposed upgrade of its Adelaide plant and global research and development centre in South Australia. The government's reasons for assisting these projects are on the public record.(7) See criteria and guidelines at Attachment 1. (8) In the period to 31 July 2002, 27 written applications under the Strategic Investment Coordination initiative were declined or withdrawn. Strategic Investment CoordinationIn the global environment investment capital is highly mobile and competition for investment is vigorous. It is common for companies with prospective investment projects to seek from governments the most lucrative package of investment attraction measures available. Australia's key advantage as an investment location will continue to be the strength of our economic fundamentals, underpinned by reforms to the taxation system, financial system and the labour market.The Government is not disposed towards providing across the board investment incentives. The Government does, however, acknowledge that in some circumstances there may be a need for specific incentives to be provided to secure strategic investments for Australia. The underlying rationale of the Strategic Investment Coordination process is to attract to Australia projects with significant net economic and employment benefits that would have otherwise located offshore. The process recognises the global mobility of foreign direct investment and that projects may be competing for footloose capital.The Strategic Investment Coordination process also takes into consideration the impact of the Government's broader taxation reforms on very large capital intensive projects. In addition, recognising the importance of regional development to Australia, the Government is mindful of the regional impact of proposals when considering them for incentives. The process is designed to generate additional investment not subsidise investment that would have occurred anyway. Importantly, the process is not an assistance mechanism or an avenue to support the fundability of a project, nor should it be viewed as an infrastructure fund.Through the Strategic Investment Coordination process, the Strategic Investment Coordinator, Mr Fergus Ryan, advises the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on requests for investment incentives. In this role, the Strategic Investment Coordinator is supported by Invest Australia. Requests for incentives are considered on a case by case basis against published criteria. Similarly, the delivery mechanisms for incentives vary from case to case and can be delivered through for example, taxable grants or tax relief.Proposals for incentives need to address in detail the Strategic Investment Coordination criteria. The onus is on the proponents to provide the necessary information in a suitable and acceptable form to facilitate an assessment against the criteria. The type of information required under each of the criteria, an economic benefit checklist and a flow chart outlining the process for consideration of an incentive request are attached. However, this is not a recipe from which a desired outcome can be guaranteed. Proponents are encouraged to critically assess the prospects of meeting the criteria before committing significant resources to developing a proposal. Also, it is recommended that proponents submit a proposal to the Strategic Investment Coordinator only when the project is substantially developed and when a decision has been made regarding in which State or Territory the project would be potentially located.When evaluating a request for assistance through the Strategic Investment Coordination process, Invest Australia takes advice from a range of sources which are both internal and external to the Government. This evaluation balances the Government's need for rigour and transparency with the proponent's need for confidentiality and for a timely outcome.The Strategic Investment Coordinator considers Invest Australia's advice and decides whether a proposal warrants Cabinet's consideration. As there are no program funds allocated in the Budget for the Strategic Investment Coordination process, each proposal represents additional funding for which Cabinet's approval is required. Proponents should recognise that even if a proposal satisfies the criteria, it does not necessary follow that either the Strategic Investment Coordinator or the Cabinet would favourably consider the proposal.Should the Government decide to provide incentives to a project, it would be necessary to publicly disclose the quantum and nature of assistance to be provided, the benefits the Commonwealth expects to receive in return for the incentive, and the broad nature of the proponent's reciprocal obligations in receiving the incentives. The details of these disclosures would be agreed in advance between the Government and the proponent. The granting of an incentive is not conditional on prescribed levels of Australian industry involvement. However, local industry participation's is encouraged and Invest Australia works with the Industrial Supplies Office Network (ISONET) to ensure that Australia's capital equipment and services capabilities are promoted in the design and development phases of major investment projects.Preliminary inquiries on investment incentives should be made to:Mr Murray Fearn Senior Manager, Investment Attraction Projects Invest Australia GPO Box 9839 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Phone: 61 - 2 - 6213 7560Fax: 61 - 2 - 6213 7843Submissions for investment incentives should be made to:Mr Fergus RyanStrategic Investment CoordinatorC/- Invest AustraliaGPO Box 9839CANBERRA ACT 2601More information can be found at:http://www.investaustralia.gov.au or http://www.isr.gov.au/growth/index.htmlStrategic Investment Coordination CriteriaCriterion 1: The investment would not be likely to occur in Australia without the incentive. This criterion requires the Government to be convinced that the investment would occur in another country but for the incentive. When considering this criterion, the Government recognises the global mobility of foreign direct investment and that projects may be competing for footloose capital.Consequently, investment incentives may be required to overcome differences in the investment climates of competitor countries. In determining such a differential, the Government needs to be satisfied that the costs to the investor of undertaking the project in Australia compared to alternative locations are soundly based and their consequences have been properly reflected in comparative financial projections.Ultimately, it must be demonstrated that the location of the project is contingent on the provision of an incentive and, importantly, if an incentive was offered it would change the investment decision outcome. Criterion 2: The investment provides significant net economic benefits through:· a substantial increase in employment; · substantial business investment;· a significant boost to Australia's R&D capability;· a significant benefit to, or investment by, other industries, either users or suppliers (cluster investment); and· ensuring that it does not involve substitution of existing production capacity which would provide an unfair advantage over other competing projects.Under the net economic benefits criterion, the Government examines whether the provision of investment incentives has merit from the point of view of the broader economy and community. There are a number of reasons for this.· The funds used by governments to provide incentives come directly from taxpayers. Taxpayers have a right to expect that investments made on their behalf will yield a reasonable return to the community.· Limited funds are available to governments. Funds provided as investment incentives reduce governments' ability to provide other services like health, education and welfare.· An intervention which may make sense when viewed by itself may not be sensible when viewed in the context of the whole economy. The extent to which this is an issue will depend on the linkages between the industry/sector under consideration and other areas of the economy.· An intervention to assist one individual/industry/sector can also affect the behaviour of others. · The onus of demonstrating net economic benefits rests with the applicant. It is crucial that the economic impact analysis of the project takes into account the direct and indirect effects of the project in a way that considers not only the benefits, but also the costs, of the project. Such an analysis of the project should go beyond a simple input-output approach, which says little about the net (as opposed to gross) benefits. The Net Economic Benefit Checklist may be useful to proponents in preparing an economic impact study. Response to the checklist would assist the Government to identify, from the perspective of the broader economy, the range of costs and benefits which are likely to result from the proposed investment. Some of the checklist questions may be more relevant to certain projects than others, depending on the characteristics of each proposal.While the list is intended to cover most issues, each project will be unique in its own way, and further information may be sought at a later stage. Where project proponents consider that information additional to that sought is relevant and available, this should also be included eg., project proponents may have commissioned economic or environmental impact statements, or detailed economic modelling of their proposal. Criterion 3: The investment complements Australia's areas of competitive advantage.Under this criterion proposals must demonstrate that the investment would build on Australia's competitive advantages which would support the long-term viability of the project. Importantly, the investment should enhance Australia's industrial base through the introduction of new technologies, processes and skills transfer. Criterion 4: The investment is viable in the long term without subsidy.The intent of the criterion is to ensure that a project is financially viable and will not be an ongoing financial burden to the taxpayer. Proponents need to demonstrate that should the proposal attract an incentive the project would contribute to the Australian economy over an extended period. In assessing the viability of a proposal the Government would look at the project as a stand-alone business. Determination of commercial prospects requires financial modelling against a range of assumptions including lead times; exchange rates, input costs, taxes, and discount and interest rates. All inputs and outputs should be set at arms length prices even though inputs may be purchased from and product sold to related companies.While the ability to raise finance in the market place is the ultimate test of the financial viability of any proposal, the Government needs to conduct its own analysis of the information provided by applicants. Consequently, information is required from the proponent's balance sheet, profit and loss and cash flow projections over the life of the project. Criterion 5: The incentives are open to foreign and domestic investors.This criterion recognises the mobility of the global investment environment. Hence, an investment incentive may be granted to multi-national corporations, individual foreign investors, domestic investors or consortia of foreign and domestic investors. Proponents should describe company structures and project partners as part of their proposal.Criterion 6: The quantum of project specific assistance takes into consideration the availability of other assistance from the Commonwealth or State and Territory governments.This criterion ensures that the total package of assistance from all levels of government is taken into account. All possible avenues of assistance from existing Commonwealth, State and Territory programs need to be investigated. Before the Commonwealth Government can consider the merits of an incentive request, the decision on site location for the project is required to be made and the proponent will need to provide details of any state and territory government assistance whether financial or in kind.The proposal can then be assessed to determine what additional incentive is necessary to attract the project to Australia. The Commonwealth liaises closely with relevant agencies at all levels of government to verify and coordinate an incentive package.Criterion 7: Any incentives are consistent with our international obligations, including under WTO. The delivery mechanism of an incentive may be granted in various forms such as via a taxable grant or tax relief. Importantly, in granting an incentive, the Government needs to ensure that Australia does not contravene international agreements such as the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.The WTO rules apply to all forms of subsidies in the territory of a WTO Member. The Commonwealth government, as the signatory to the WTO on behalf of Australia, is obliged to take such reasonable measures as may be available to it to ensure observance of WTO rules by State, Territory and Local governments, including rules on prohibited subsidies. Subsidies prohibited by the WTO are those contingent, in law or in fact, on actual or anticipated export performance, or subsidies contingent on the use of domestic over imported goods.The Indicative Net Economic Benefit ChecklistEmployment Impacts· How many new, full-time equivalent, jobs are likely to be directly generated by the proposalIn the construction phase?In the operational phase?· Where will these employees come from? Please indicate numbers.The company's operations overseasThe company's operations elsewhere in AustraliaLocal areaElsewhere in Australia· What level of skills will be required of these employees? Please indicate the number of employees required in each category, and from where these employees will be sourced (see previous question).Professional/managerial Low skilled blue collarHigh skilled blue collarLow skilled white collarHigh skilled white collar· Will additional training be required by employees?Will this be provided on-the-job, or as a formal training course provided in-house by the company or by an external contractor (please specify)?Will the benefits of additional training be transferable to other companies/industries/sectors or are they specific to this project?Investment· What is the estimated project expenditure in the construction phase?· Is the project likely to generate further investment, for example, through future expansion? What is the likely timing and magnitude of future investment?· How will the investment be funded? Please indicate the level of funds likely to be generated from each source and the type of funding (eg. debt or equity).From domestic sourcesFrom overseas sources · Does the company's business plan specify how profits will be utilised? For example, will profits be reinvested in the project, repatriated to an external parent, or employed in a range of other company activities in Australia or elsewhere?Research and Development· Will the project transfer new technologies, without close substitutes, to Australia? Please specify how these technologies will be transferred and what they will be.· Will R&D associated with the project's construction/operation be undertaken in Australia? What is the likely level of this R&D expenditure?· What proportion of the total staff will be employed in R&D activities in Australia?· Will R&D be in an area in which Australia has not previously been involved?· Will any new technologies developed be made available to other users? Under what conditions?· Is the project likely to lead to further innovation along the supply chain?Impact on Other Industries· What other industries will be affected by the proposed investment project? For example, there may be impacts on industries that supply inputs, on industries which consume the output of the project, on the construction industry, on the demand for transport services, and on the retail industry.How will these industries be affected? (For example, increased use of road transport may increase the need for maintenance.) If possible, please provide some quantitative assessment of the impact.· Is the project likely to generate significant macroeconomic impacts? For example, if it generates large exports, will the exchange rate be affected? What will be the impact of such exports on other industries/national welfare? Alternatively, will the project cause significant import replacement? · Is the project likely to generate additional investment by other industries, either existing or new industries? If possible, please provide some quantitative estimate.· What are the likely regional impacts?· What is the estimated employment impact on other industries? Please explain why employment in these industries is likely to expand or contract.· Does the project raise any other community or environmental issues, either positive or negative? Please describe. For example, while a project may generate greenhouse gas emissions, these may be significantly lower than similar projects using different or older technologies.· How does the proposed project fit with other government policies, like National Competition Policy (NCP) or tariff policy? For example, will the project affect the cost or the availability of infrastructure services like electricity or gas? Are either outputs or inputs protected by tariffs or affected by Action Agendas? What impact is the project likely to have on innovation or R&D?Competition· Will the project replace an existing Australian capacity, owned either by the project proponents or by a competitor?· Will the project promote competition, eg. through the provision of additional supply in a tightly held market? · Will the project reduce risk and uncertainty in existing markets, eg. by giving greater stability of supply?· Are there other similar, substitutable, or competing projects under consideration elsewhere in Australia?5902(Question No. 570)5705902O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 24 June 2002:How many families are currently on waiting lists for child care places in the electoral division of Bass.5902Anthony, 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:The Department of Family and Community Services does not collect information on waiting lists held by child care services. Child care places for family day care, outside school hours care, and in-home care are allocated by the Department of Family and Community Services to areas identified through the child care national planning system. There is no limit on the number of long day care centre places.5902(Question No. 590)5905902Grierson, Sharon, MPMs Grierson00AMPNewcastleALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 24 June 2002:How many people with a disability are employed by the Minister's Department or agencies under the Minister's administration in the electoral division of Newcastle.5902Anthony, 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:Six staff are employed; this consists of four in Centrelink and two in the Child Support Agency.5902(Question No. 619)6195902King, Catherine, MPMs King00AMRBallaratALP00 asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 26 June 2002:(1) From what years were Conservation Volunteers Australia funded to develop and implement the Green Corps program.(2) What outcomes were achieved by Green Corps participants under the management of Conservation Volunteers Australia.(3) Is the Minister aware of any concerns regarding the performance of Conservation Volunteers Australia in relation to its management of the Green Corps program.(4) Can the Minister provide an estimate of the Government's and Conservation Volunteers Australia's sunk costs in relation to the establishment of management and administration structures for the Green Corps program.(5) Has Conservation Volunteers Australia been awarded the new tender to manage the Green Corps program; if not, (a) on what basis was the decision made to award the tender away from Conservation Volunteers Australia, (b) what is the cost to Government of moving the management of the Green Corps program from Conservation Volunteers Australia and (c) where is the head office of the organisation awarded the tender for the management of the Green Corps program located.5903Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Conservation Volunteers Australia received funding from 1996/1997 to 2001/2002.(2) That information will be available in late February 2003. Round 27, which is the final Green Corps round that Conservation Volunteers Australia will be managing will end on 22 November 2002. Post program monitoring occurs three months after participants have finished.(3) No.(4) All costs were in relation to Green Corps projects.(5) No. (a) A competitive request for tender process. The preferred provider of the program was selected by evaluating offers against the relevant selection criteria. (b) There is no cost. (c) The head office is located in Sydney.