2002-08-284013REPS590502002-08-28—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills5905R16225905Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.590509:31:005905Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to provide for an additional function of the Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC) to allow for: the planning, facilitation and participation in the reform of the dairy industry statutory service provider bodies, the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Dairy Research and Development Corporation;the funding of these processes; andthe minister to issue directions to the ADC in specific relation to this additional function. The bill also provides for farmers with entitlements under the Dairy Structural Adjustment Program or Supplementary Dairy Assistance Scheme to access exit assistance through the Farm Help Re-establishment Grant scheme, following the ending of the Dairy Exit Program on 30 June 2002.In relation to the provision for an additional function for the ADC, it is clear that significant changes over recent years in the market situation and corporate structure of the Australian dairy industry, particularly since deregulation in July 2000, have prompted the dairy industry to seek a rationalisation of industry statutory service delivery arrangements to better meet industry priorities and to improve service delivery functions. To move forward this reform agenda, the dairy industry has approached the government with a proposal for reform which would see the two statutory service providers merge and become one Corporations Act company, directly accountable to levy payer members. As with the wool, red meat and horticulture industries that have undertaken similar reforms, a particular focus of the dairy industry proposal is on providing the industry with greater ownership of R&D and market development priorities, as well as enabling levy payers to have a greater direct input into the nature and direction of these key service delivery activities. Of course, as with any reform of this magnitude, investigations must be made into the viability, suitability and efficiency of what is being proposed and it is clearly important that, within these reforms, industry services are tailored to the new industry environment. This bill provides the funding mechanism for this process to take place by enabling the Australian Dairy Corporation to fund an investigation of the best options for reform, and thereby allowing government and industry to work together to develop a proposal that meets all these requirements.Additionally, the amendments provide for the ADC to fund the Commonwealth, the DRDC and industry's involvement in the reform processes to ensure a full consultative process takes place, along with the provision of advisers to assist in the investigation of the best options for reform.While the government has yet to consider a detailed reform proposal, it is clearly in the industry's interests to ensure that any proposal that comes forward has been fully analysed and rigorously examined by expert business and legal advisers. With the passage of this bill, the work can begin in earnest so that the government can work towards industry's desired start date for the reformed bodies of 1 July 2003.The Australian dairy industry continues to be an innovative, progressive and highly successful rural industry and its ongoing program of reform is to be admired. This bill will ensure that government and the statutory authorities can assist the industry in meeting the challenges of the future and ensure the industry continues to grow and prosper—from the Australian farm gate to supermarket shelves throughout the world.The bill also provides for farmers with DSAP and SDA entitlements to access exit assistance under the FHRG scheme. This is necessary following the cessation of the Dairy Exit Program on 30 June 2002. Currently, only those farmers who are not holders of DSAP and SDA entitlements are able to apply for exit grants under the FHRG scheme. These amendments will enable this inequitable situation to be corrected by removing the impediments to holders of DSAP/SDA entitlement to access the Farm Help Re-establishment Grant scheme.Importantly, the amendments provide the same level of access to the FHRG scheme as was available to DSAP/SDA entitlement holders under the Dairy Exit Program. The FHRG provides eligible entitlement holders with payments of up to $45,000 tax free and access to a retraining grant of $3,500. The total amount of the exit payment will be based on an assets test and eligibility requirements applied under the FHRG scheme.As was the case under the Dairy Exit Program, DSAP and SDA entitlement holders who are eligible for an exit grant will have this grant reduced by the amount of DSAP and SDA payments received, as well as having all future entitlements under the DSAP and SDA schemes cancelled. This is necessary to ensure that all farmers are treated equitably and that those with DSAP and SDA entitlements do not receive any unfair financial advantage.The bill provides for the cost of these changes to the eligibility for the Farm Help Re-establishment Grant scheme to be funded out of the Dairy Structural Adjustment Fund from which the Commonwealth's dairy industry restructure measures are funded. It is expected that there will be little or no impact on the fund given the requirement that all future DSAP and SDA entitlements be cancelled as part of the grant of exit payments under the FHRG scheme. The government is conscious that those farmers with DSAP or SDA entitlements may have to confront more general circumstances outside industry deregulation that will require government assistance to exit agriculture with dignity and with realistic choices for their futures. For this reason, the government takes the view that these farmers should be provided with access, on an equitable basis, to the current exit grant arrangements available under the FHRG scheme to other farmers.In conclusion, the government believes that it is important to continue to support efforts aimed at ensuring the continued profitability and expansion of the dairy industry in Australia. These efforts not only relate to the possible reform of the dairy statutory bodies but also extend to supporting those who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to continue in the industry. These amendments signify the government's continuing commitment to the dairy industry as a whole, to individual farmers and to their future. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned.Bills5906R16185906Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.590609:39:005906Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The Egg Industry Service Provision Bill 2002 provides for the establishment of an egg industry company limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act. The company, to be called Australian Egg Corporation Ltd or AECL, will be responsible for providing services to the industry. These services will include generic promotion and the R&D functions that are currently provided by a subprogram of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC). These new arrangements will allow a more coordinated and commercial approach to the delivery of services to the egg industry. Importantly, it will ensure that, for the first time, all egg producers can be directly involved in the application of their levies to best effect. The egg industry has experienced a difficult period since deregulation of state marketing arrangements in the late 1980s. Further pressures have resulted in recent years from newcastle disease outbreaks and changes to layer hen housing to meet animal welfare requirements.Through a period of declining fortunes, egg producers have suffered from a limited ability to adopt a whole-of-industry approach to crucial issues. They have been unable to communicate to consumers about the health benefits of egg consumption and to benefit substantially from industry R&D. Between 1989 and 1999 Australia's annual average egg consumption decreased from 146 to 137 eggs per person. The industry argues that this decline is due to a market failure in egg promotion. Whilst there are some producers large enough to carry out marketing and create brand recognition, this alone has not been enough to redress declining per capita consumption. In 2001 the industry came to government with a proposal to establish a new promotional levy, and to use the money generated to fund generic promotion. In addition, they wanted to establish a single industry owned company to manage promotion and industry R&D. The industry strongly argued that a national generic promotion campaign was needed to boost flagging egg consumption.After an extensive consultation process, the Australian Egg Industry Association demonstrated that such a company was required, and that a majority of the industry supported the proposal. Having secured government agreement for the proposal during June this year, the industry are now preparing themselves for a transition date of 1 January 2003. Under the arrangements, all egg producers who pay the statutory promotional levy will be eligible to become registered members of AECL, and therefore will be able to have a direct input into the management and application of their statutory levies. Registered levy payers will be able to exert their influence through voting rights, appointment of board members, and input to the company's policy development and planning activities. Integration of R&D, promotion and other industry services will enable the egg industry to be more responsive to the challenges it faces. The new company will also improve communication within the industry, with consumers and with government. This will especially be the case on issues such as food safety, animal welfare and disease management. In terms of R&D, the new arrangements will see the existing egg subprogram transferred from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation to the new company. The arrangements for this transfer are dealt with in a cognate bill, Egg Industry Service Provision (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2002.The billThe Egg Industry Service Provision (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2002 provides for the new industry structure by enabling the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to declare a company limited by guarantee as the industry services body. Before the declaration can be made, the minister must have entered into a contract with the industry services body detailing the arrangements under which the company will manage and administer industry levies collected by the Commonwealth and Commonwealth matching R&D payments. The contract can only be entered into if the minister is satisfied that there are satisfactory accountability measures in place, including in the company's constitution. Once the declaration has been made, the Commonwealth can make promotion and R&D payments to the company, as well as matching Commonwealth contributions for eligible R&D expenditure. AccountabilityThere are a number of benefits associated with the new arrangements. More than ever before, levy payers will have a direct influence on the way in which their industry levies are utilised. Through their voting rights, members will hold the company's board accountable to the way in which they deliver industry service arrangements. In addition, the new structure and levy will enable the egg industry to address the market failure which currently hinders egg promotion. By improving communication with consumers and boosting egg consumption, the company will promote the development and profitability of the egg industry.While the model allows the industry to have a greater say in the management of its affairs, there will also be increased responsibilities. The distancing of government means the industry accepting responsibility for its activities and appreciating that there is no automatic recourse to government assistance when the going gets tough. In short, the industry will be responsible for planning its own future, strategically seeking priority outcomes, and managing for risk.In terms of accountability to the Commonwealth, the new company will be bound by a number of measures. These measures will be outlined in the funding contract with the Commonwealth and in the company's constitution. They include: comprehensive planning and reporting requirements, with copies of plans and reports to be made available to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; regular performance reviews to assess the company's efficiency and effectiveness in meeting planned priorities; regular meetings between the chair of the industry company and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to discuss industry issues and to ensure that the government's priorities for R&D are being addressed; a requirement for a mix of producer and specialist skills based directors on the board of the company, including a specialist in corporate governance; and a requirement that the company remain separate from any industry agri-political activities. These sorts of activities should be conducted by the peak industry body, which has not been included as part of the new company.Should the company change its constitution in an unacceptable way, become insolvent, or fail to comply with the legislation or funding contract, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will have the ability to temporarily suspend or terminate the payment of statutory levies. Alternatively, the minister will have the option to rescind the declaration of AECL as the industry services body. Not only will these requirements ensure that the company is using statutory levies for their intended purpose; they will also help to secure a successful future for the new company.ConclusionThis Egg Industry Service Provision Bill paves the way for the industry to look to the future with a more commercially driven and consumer responsive approach. With this new company, the industry will have the capability to respond more effectively and efficiently to current and emerging industry challenges. Ultimately, this will mean increased egg consumption and improved industry profitability. I commend the industry on its unity in bringing this proposal to government. Their initiative is another example of a maturing agricultural and food industry looking to secure its future. It provides me with great pleasure to be working with the egg industry in implementing the arrangements, and I am particularly impressed with the extensive levels of consultation throughout the industry, with stakeholders, and with government.This bill, and the accompanying transitional bill, creates a turning point for the management of industry affairs and for the potential for industry growth and development. It will establish a solid foundation for the industry to improve its position in terms of egg consumption and overall profitability. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned.Bills5908R16195908Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.590909:48:005909Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This bill accompanies the Egg Industry Service Provision Bill 2002, which provides for the establishment of an egg industry company limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act. The company will be responsible for service provision, including research and development (R&D).Under the existing arrangements, egg R&D services are provided to the industry by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC). The egg subprogram is funded through a statutory industry levy, and matching Commonwealth funding for eligible R&D expenditure. Under the new arrangements, provision of R&D services will be transferred to the new company, along with the assets and liabilities associated with the RIRDC egg subprogram.The Egg Industry Service Provision (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2002 provides for the transfer, and for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to declare the time at which it is to occur. In order to prevent any financial disadvantage to the industry, the bill provides for the transfer of assets and liabilities to be exempt from stamp duty. For the purposes of GST law, the transfer of assets is taken to be consideration provided by the Commonwealth to the successor body for entering into obligations under the funding contract. As a result, the Commonwealth will be able to claim a refund on any GST imposed. Once the assets and liabilities have been transferred to the company, their use will be governed by obligations and accountability requirements outlined in a funding contract with the Commonwealth. In addition, details of the new industry services body's accountability arrangements to its members and to the Commonwealth will be included in its constitution. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned.Bills5909R16125909Bill presented by Dr Nelson, and read a first time.590909:51:005909Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.Education exports have grown phenomenally in recent years. As Australia's fastest growing export service sector, international education contributes over $4 billion annually to the Australian economy. That is as much as wheat and, indeed, more than wool. Australian education has a global reputation for its high quality and innovation. These attributes, combined with competitive tuition fees and a lower cost of living than its major competitors, make the Australian education and training services export industry a thriving, expanding and vital sector in the Australian economy.This government is committed to protecting this valuable industry and assisting its development through strong policies and supportive legislation. This amendment bill supports the government's objectives to provide a strengthened regulatory framework for Australia's education and training export industry and to protect its integrity and long-term viability.Since the introduction of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, the ESOS Act, this industry has flourished with many new providers becoming registered to teach and train overseas students in Australia. It has also seen an increase in the number of students and a broad spread of countries represented by these students.The government is committed to having the best possible regulatory framework to enable this industry to grow. The need for these amendments results from the interpretation and implementation of certain provisions of the ESOS Act since its introduction. Ambiguities will be removed and greater clarity provided with regard to certain sections relating to Commonwealth powers and sanctions of the ESOS Act. These measures all contribute to providing greater certainty for the Australian education and training export industry.The financial impact of this bill will be minimal and no additional budget funding will be required. It is important to note that there will not be any increase in costs to either the Commonwealth or to industry and that the bill is revenue neutral.As these amendments are of a minor, technical nature, there will be no impact or additional requirements placed on businesses and industry, and there is no change in overall government policy. In addition to these technical amendments, a review of the ESOS Act, to commence by December 2003, will provide the scope for a detailed, more policy based inspection of the legislation. If required, more significant amendments could be introduced at that time.The administrative amendments contained in this bill include such items as improving the clarity of the definition of `registered provider'. These changes will reduce ambiguity for the industry, particularly when sanctions are imposed. The bill also makes it clear that a registered provider who provides or promotes any unregistered course in any state or territory is in breach of the ESOS Act and is liable for sanctions.These amendments will also enable refunds of course moneys paid on behalf of a student to be returned to the person who made the payment, such as in the case of a sponsor. This measure will allow for greater certainty for foreign governments, multilateral organisations and multinational corporations who sponsor large numbers of overseas students to Australian educational institutions each year. A person merely acting as an agent of a student would not be entitled to a refund under this measure.The bill will provide greater flexibility for the Commonwealth to impose sanctions against a provider for noncompliance with the ESOS Act or the national code. The Commonwealth, through the Department of Education, Science and Training, will have the option of imposing less severe and more suitable sanctions than are currently possible. The bill will allow for the suspension or cancellation of one or more specific courses offered by a provider, where the situation warrants such action. Only more severe sanctions are currently available under the act.Further, the amendments will allow the Commonwealth to take a more flexible approach to providers believed to be in financial difficulties. The Commonwealth will have expanded powers to impose conditions in addition to suspensions and cancellations where it is deemed to be appropriate, thereby giving providers greater opportunity to trade their way out of trouble.These final two measures are included in the interest of protecting overseas students studying in Australia and working to ensure that they receive the high-quality education they expect and for which they have paid.This amendment bill will strengthen the regulation of the education and training services export industry in Australia. While the continued effectiveness of the ESOS Act is evident, these minor technical enhancements will ensure that this important export industry is protected into the future and continues to benefit Australian business. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned.Bills5910R16175910Bill presented by Mr Tuckey, and read a first time.591009:56:005910Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988, the self-government act, and the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988, the PALM Act. The bill will align the self-government act with the Electoral Act 1992 for the ACT. It will remove redundant references, clarify certain ambiguities and rectify some operational anomalies. The amendments are all of a technical nature and do not substantially change the operation of the current legislation.Schedule 1 of the bill amends the self-government act. The first amendment included in the schedule is the repeal of the current subsection 16(9), which provides that `the head of administration' cannot be appointed commissioner in the event that the Legislative Assembly is dissolved by the Governor-General because it is incapable of effectively performing its functions or it is conducting its affairs in a grossly improper manner. `The head of administration' was a transitionary position that existed from self-government in 1989 until the formation of the ACT Public Service in 1994. Therefore, the first amendment contained in Schedule 1 of the bill replaces the old subsection 16(9) with a new subsection stating that the present equivalent to the head of administration, the Chief Executive of the Chief Minister's Department, cannot be appointed commissioner under section 16 of the self-government act. An additional subsection has been added which provides that any future change of name for that position will not affect the operation of subsection 16(9).The second amendment contained in schedule 1 of the bill provides for an amendment to subsection 46(1) of the act, which deals with the circumstances in which the Chief Minister and a minister vacate office. The amendment substitutes two subsections—46(1) and 46(1A)—spelling out separately, and thus more clearly, the circumstances of vacating office for the Chief Minister and a minister. This amendment does not change the content of the subsection. It rewrites the subsection in plain English to make the meaning clear.The bill also aligns the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act with the Electoral Act 1992 for the ACT, as amended in 1997. Subsection 48(4) precludes an election being called by the Minister for Territories from August to February in a pre-election year when the Legislative Assembly fails to elect the Chief Minister after a vote of no-confidence, and subsequently the Governor-General does not dissolve the assembly within 30 days. The intent of subsection 48(4) is to prevent an election being called in the six months prior to a scheduled general election.However, amendments to the Electoral Act 1992 for the ACT changed the timing of ACT elections from February every third year to October every third year. The Electoral Act 1992 for the ACT, as amended in 1997, also specified in subsection 100(3) that a scheduled general election will not be held if an extraordinary election is held in the preceding six months. Consequently, the provisions contained in subsection 48(4) of the self-government act are not only outdated but also redundant because of more recent ACT legislation. The subsection is therefore repealed.The repeal of subsection 48(4) makes subsection 48(1), which defines a pre-election year, redundant and it is also repealed.The Electoral Act 1992 for the ACT, as amended in 1997, makes several other clauses of the self-government act redundant, including subsections 67(2) to (5), section 67E, and section 68. These were all transitionary clauses, designed to administer certain electoral matters in the ACT until the Legislative Assembly had enacted their own electoral legislation. These sections and subsections are therefore redundant and are repealed.Other minor amendments contained in schedule 1 include removing references to positions which no longer exist in subsection 70(1) and schedule 4 of the self-government act.Schedule 2 of the bill amends the PALM Act. That act sets out the requirements for meetings of the National Capital Authority. Specifically, section 43 currently requires that the full-time member, normally the Chief Executive of the National Capital Authority, be present at meetings of the authority for a quorum to be formed. This conflicts with section 42 which requires that a member who has a pecuniary interest in a matter being considered by the authority shall disclose that interest and not take part in any deliberation or decision related to that matter. The amendments are designed to address the situation where a full-time chief executive of the authority or a full-time chairperson is the member who declares a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter to be considered by the authority and is therefore unable to be present at any deliberation of the authority with respect to that matter. In that situation, under the current legislation, a meeting of the authority cannot be held unless the minister appoints a person to the acting position of full-time member or the minister or the authority determines that the member can be present.The amendments in schedule 2 of this bill remove the requirement for the full-time member to be present at meetings for there to be a quorum when the full-time member has disclosed a pecuniary interest. Under these amendments, if the full-time member is the chief executive and is unable to be present for deliberations and any subsequent decision by the authority on a matter because of a declared pecuniary interest, a quorum will be formed by the part-time chairperson and two other members. If the full-time member is also the chairperson and the chief executive is unable to attend a meeting because of a declared pecuniary interest, a quorum will be formed by any three members. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill, and I commend it to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned.Bills5912R14745912Consideration resumed from 22 August.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (lines 2 to 14), omit section 298SA, substitute:298SA Permissible bargaining fees (1) An organisation may charge a permissible bargaining fee: (a) in connection with an agreement certified under section 170LJ or Division 3 where: (i) the agreement's beneficiaries include those who have not made a contribution to the costs of reaching the agreement by means of paying a union membership fee; and (ii) this permissible bargaining fee is explained in clear language, and in writing, to all employees in advance of the vote on the agreement; and (iii) details of the permissible bargaining fee, and the services for which it is payable, are set out in the agreement; and (iv) all employees affected by the agreement are advised, prior to bargaining commencing, whether it is proposed to include a permissible bargaining services fee in the agreement, and that they may make submissions to the AIRC under subparagraph (vii) in relation to this fee; and (v) in addition to the requirement in subsection 170LT(5), a valid majority of persons employed at the time, whose employment would be subject to the agreement, have genuinely agreed to the provision; and (vi) the agreement provides for the method and timing of the fee to be paid; and (vii) the AIRC is satisfied that the fee is fair and reasonable; and (viii) the agreement provides that new employees pay the fee only for the pro rata period of the agreement from the time that their employment commences; or (b) in connection with an agreement certified under section 170LK where: (i) the employee has agreed to pay for the provision of bargaining services in respect of the certified agreement; and (ii) the employee has agreed to the total amount to be paid and this total amount covers all the bargaining services that may be provided in relation to the employee in respect of the certified agreement; and (iii) the agreement was entered into before the bargaining services were provided.(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 1 to 6), omit Division 5A, substitute:Division 5A—False or misleading representations about bargaining services fees etc.298SC False or misleading representations about bargaining services fees etc. A person must not make a false or misleading representation about: (a) another person's liability to pay a bargaining services fee; or (b) another person's obligation to enter into an agreement to pay a bargaining services fee; or (c) another person's obligation to join an industrial association.(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (lines 7 to 11), omit the item.(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (line 12) to page 7 (line 4), omit the item. (5) Schedule 1, item 14, page 8 (lines 8 to 11), omit the item.(6) Schedule 1, item 15, page 8 (lines 12 to 19), omit the item.10:06:005913Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the amendments be disagreed to.The basic principles here are compulsory unionism and the government's abhorrence of compulsory unionism. The government's view is that, if compulsory union membership is unacceptable, compulsory union levies should equally be unacceptable, and that is why we believe that the Senate amendments should be disagreed to. Senate amendment (1) would allow a majority vote to impose a compulsory bargaining services fee on all employees. We believe, as a government, that these compulsory bargaining fees are a de facto union fee, and therefore they contravene the freedom of association provisions in the act. They are certainly contrary to the principle of freedom of association which the government upholds and, accordingly, we believe that the House should oppose the amendment.Senate amendment (2) is unnecessary because the bill already prohibits false or misleading representations about someone's liability to pay a bargaining services fee, but it is unacceptable as well because it is designed to ameliorate the consequences of a compulsory union fee and compulsory union fees are what this bill is designed to prevent. Senate amendments (3) and (5) should also be disagreed with. Amendment (3) would remove item 11 from the bill. Item 11 ensures that the provision of a certified agreement is void to the extent that it requires the payment of a bargaining services fee. Item 11 is a key element of the bill and therefore it should stand. Senate amendment (5) is consequential upon amendment (3), so both of those amendments should be rejected. Senate amendment (4) proposes to delete item 12 from the bill. Item 12 amends the definition of `objectionable provision' to include a clause that imposes a bargaining services fee. Senate amendment (6) is consequential on amendment (4), so both of those amendments should be rejected and disagreed to. I should say that the Australian Democrats have entered into consideration of this matter in the Senate with a good heart. They have tried to make compulsory union levies less objectionable, but an odious principle remains an odious principle however much it is dressed up. However much it is watered down, it is still an odious principle. What the ACTU and some unions are trying to achieve through these compulsory union levies is backdoor compulsory unionism. It is the Clayton's closed shop. They are trying to achieve by a form of legal coercion what they cannot get by legitimate and genuine persuasion. If a company tried to impose a fee on people for services that they had not requested and did not need, it would be guilty of a scam, it would be guilty of an offence under fair trading and trade practices laws. What the unions want to do here is the equivalent of someone walking past my house, looking at the front fence, deciding that it needs to be fixed, fixing it—or, at least, pretending to fix it—and then charging me when I come.As I said, the Australian Democrats have tried to make these provisions less objectionable, but they still amount to coercion. If the principle of compulsory union levies is to be extended through the economy, it means that five million non-union members are potentially subject to a $500 a year union tax, and I do not believe that is anything that this parliament should support. Certainly this government does not support it. It is an important issue. I should point out to the House that the government will re-present this bill in three months time, and I hope that by then the Senate will have reconsidered its views.10:11:005914McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition oppose the motion. We think the amendments should be agreed to as being sensible, balanced and fair. Before addressing the amendments, I want to make four points in respect of this concept of a bargaining services fee. Firstly, when unions negotiate as part of the collective bargaining process, they are compelled to do so on behalf of all employees. They cannot seek to achieve a members only agreement. We say that that is appropriate. You are only going to cause divisions in the workplace if you have two classes of agreement according to whether someone is or is not in a trade union. But, having compelled unions to negotiate on behalf of all employees, you then have to look at how that service is provided.That leads me to my second point. It involves tremendous expense to participate effectively in enterprise negotiations. The whole lie of the land has changed. Instead of the past practice of unions paying an advocate to go and stand up before the Industrial Relations Commission, the outcomes nowadays are increasingly delivered appropriately—as we say and as the government says—at the workplace. But to do it properly—to have someone getting involved in understanding the workplace organisation, the skills, the remuneration scales, the performance measures and the business plans—involves a lot of work and a lot of expertise. Indeed, in the great majority of cases, it is done properly. While we hear of some dramatic instances of industrial disputation, in the great majority of these cases there is no disputation. So, to do it properly, you have to ask yourself, `How is it funded?' and this is where unions argue in favour of the need for a bargaining services fee.The third point I want to make is that, contrary to the statement by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, it will not apply across the board. It cannot apply across the board. It will only apply in those establishments that are unionised. Why? Because you need an absolute majority of members to support the enterprise agreement. Indeed, under the Democrat amendments, which the ALP opposition supported, there will have to be a separate democratic vote in respect of this issue as to whether fees will be imposed.That leads me to my fourth point. With respect to the minister, it is not a fair analogy to say that these are services that had not been requested, that had not been needed and that it is equivalent to someone walking past his house, doing some renovations and then charging him. This whole concept of democratic approval dispels that analysis. It is more analogous, if I could put this in reply, to the situation where someone owns a home unit and is a member of a body corporate, and the body corporate decide that they need to get someone to clean out the gutters. One of the members of the body corporate may say, `That is a waste of money. I don't think it is necessary. I don't want to pay for it.' The other members of the body corporate hear the argument and vote on the issue. If they nonetheless decide that they, collectively, are going to engage that service then obviously everyone has to contribute as part of that democratic procedure.I briefly go to what the Democrats have, we say, sensibly proposed. Firstly, before the service fees can become an item in the bargaining process all employees must be notified that this is going to be sought. Secondly, and importantly, the services that are going to be provided for the fee have to be particularised to all employees so that they can actually see that they are getting value for money. Then they can approach the commission individually, if they so wish, and say, `Well look, this fee as calculated isn't fair and reasonable.' That gives supervision of the process. The other important safeguard is ensuring that there is a separate democratic vote. For new employees it will apply only on a pro rata basis—that is, the portion of the agreement relating to their employment. Effectively, the concept of compulsion is also a furphy because the amendments proposed by the Democrats will retain the protections against any coercive conduct or any victimisation. When you have regard to the fact that these things probably are not recoverable by way of a contract because there is no agreement between the union and the employees who are not members, essentially it is a matter of good faith whether an employee pays. It highlights to all employees the value that the union has provided in these services. At the end of the day, I think the Democrats amendments are fair and reasonable and should be supported. (Time expired)10:16:005915Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I briefly take up a point that the shadow minister made. Inherent in the shadow minister's argument is the proposition that people are not capable of negotiating these things for themselves—that there is a necessity that someone, a union, conducts these negotiations on their behalf. That is the fundamental point which the government does not accept. I think it is perfectly reasonable for a majority in any particular context to control the rules, but it is not reasonable for a majority to try to control the affiliations, to control the loyalties, to control the mind-set of everyone else. Fifty-one per cent can set the rules, but 51 per cent cannot compel people to belong. That is why these compulsory union levies amount to a form of industrial conscription. That is why they should be rejected by this parliament.Question put:That the amendments be disagreed to.10:21:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins) 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.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.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.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.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.Windsor, A.H.C.59Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.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.Katter, R.C.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, B.P.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.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.10:27:005916Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I present the reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question agreed to. Bills5916R16105916Debate resumed from 27 August, on motion by Mr Slipper:That this bill be now read a second time.10:29:005916Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I left my speech notes in the office, so there is a bit of quick work being done up and down the stairs! This is a good test of my ability to recall some of those notes. The Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 goes to the core of much of the problem with the insurance system at the moment. Throughout my electorate, there are examples of community groups and of the adventure sport industry who have struck a brick wall when it comes to organising insurance for their ventures.While this bill provides for an adjustment to the trade practices legislation to allow for a waiver, according to the feedback I have had from the electorate and particularly from one of the adventure tourism operators, it has potential problems because it does not guarantee that the operator will not be taken through the legal hoops by smart lawyers. Jan Codey of Chesleigh Homestead at Sofala says that a waiver on its own is not enough and that the adventure industry should have clearly defined codes of conduct, with specific codes for the horse and trail riding industry, the water rafting industry and so on. Without such a code, she believes a waiver is, in itself, meaningless.The provisions of the bill allow for the self-assumption of risk by individuals undertaking risky activities, such as the sporting and adventure tourism activities that I have alluded to. As it stands, the Trade Practices Act, under section 74(1), allows the consumer to bring an action to recover damages for a breach of contract. That is, in the provision of services by a corporation to the consumer, there is an implication the services will be supplied with due care and skill and that all material and equipment associated with the service will be fit for the purpose of supplying it. Essentially, even if someone has signed a waiver of liability for the company supplying the activity, if they are injured or killed in the course of undertaking that activity, damages and compensation can be sought from the company under the TPA for breach of section 74. The new section 68B strengthens the effectiveness of the waivers, and the waiver is essential for any liability to be excluded.I ask the House to remember that those who are practising in this area have suggested that the waiver alone is not worth the paper it is written on. I would suggest an enforceable code of conduct within the particular industry. The idea behind these amendments is that, to keep the activities accessible and affordable, the consumer gives up access to the legal avenue and the provider's insurance needs, and therefore the costs, are reduced. These amendments to the act are the Commonwealth government's measures to facilitate the state tort law reform, which is aimed at reining in the escalating costs of insurance premiums. I agree that enforceable waivers will help control the cost of insurance, given that the risks involved in adventure sports and tourism are unpredictable and that properly administered waivers can draw to a customer's attention the risks involved and help them be responsible for their own actions and decisions.While we are debating this, it seems there has been an awful lot of attention paid to the absurdity, if you like, of the payouts that have been awarded to people in circumstances where it was patently obvious that their behaviour was the cause of the disability. There was the case of the chap who dived into the surf at Bondi, and the media and the public were quick to criticise the individual for his allegedly stupid activity and for the sorts of things that had occurred prior to that—I think there was consumption of alcohol. That is okay, but, at the end of the day, someone somewhere has to pick up the tab for that person's injury. Whatever led to a person's disability, the fact remains that there is going to be, according to the actuary, a cost of X million dollars to care for that person for the rest of their days. Recently, in Evans Shire Council in my electorate—where councils are covered to the tune of $10 million for public risk—there was a $16 million settlement for injury sustained by a motorist, who tragically ran off the road on loose gravel that had not been swept up by the council and who sustained very severe disabilities; I think it is called tetraplegia, where there is basically very little movement in the body or control over the body by the victim. In that $16 million payment and in similar payments—say, in cases of cerebral palsy and of proven medical negligence—a lot of the money is paid out in a lump sum. If a person passes on shortly after that settlement, where does that money go and to what purpose is it put? I would argue that it is not being put to the purposes for which it was intended.That brings me to the scheme in New Zealand. Why not have a comprehensive accident insurance scheme, such as the ACC in New Zealand, for all accidents, including those occurring as a result of high-risk sporting and adventure tourism activities? The New Zealand ACC provides accident insurance for all New Zealand citizens, residents and temporary visitors. In return, people do not have the right to sue for personal injury other than in cases of gross negligence, where this issue is dealt with separately from the compensation and care needs of the person involved. If we had a system such as that, it would effectively dampen down the premiums for public risk insurance and ensure that the victims are cared for. The New Zealand scheme provides cover for injuries no matter who is at fault; it eliminates the slow, costly and wasteful processes of using the courts for each injury; it provides timely care and rehabilitation to get people back to work or to some sort of independence, if possible; it minimises personal financial loss by paying weekly earning compensation to the injured people who are off work; it focuses on reducing the causes of these problems; and it has a staged payment regime rather than a wasteful lump sum option.I just wonder if we could think about the potential that that offers to free up scarce resources in the system—even in the insurance industry, perhaps, or in other industries involved in this rehabilitation area—because it strikes me that one of the hidden but very real costs of disability in this country is the lack of respite care for the carer. Carers in this country save the public a bill in the order of $15 million a year; I think that is what it was at last count. That is the voluntary contribution and sacrifice they are making through leaving work early or whatever to care for their loved one. I suggest that, with some sort of publicly funded scheme, there would be scope for perhaps even the insurance industry to think creatively about ways that they might contribute to the rehabilitation process as well. There could be some trade-offs in the treatment of their taxation or whatever to encourage them to look at it in toto as a disability difficulty and not just look at it as an adversarial, court based process leading to massive lump sum payments, which I believe are inherently wasteful and do not, in the end, target the real needs in this area.The ACC in New Zealand spends about $1.4 billion each year on rehabilitation treatment and weekly compensation. All New Zealanders pay premiums for ACC cover. The government funds the costs of injuries to people who are not in the paid work force. Premiums are set to pay for the current and future costs of all claims. Premium levels are set by the government after recommendations are made following a formal consultation process. Those premiums are paid to ACC. They are assigned to one of seven accounts and each account funds the compensation claim for the injury the account covers.The government, despite the initial support of the minister in the chamber, has scotched the idea of a national accident insurance liability scheme on the basis, as I understand it, of the ACC's purported unfunded liability of $6.5 billion. In actual fact, the liability has been significantly reduced to $3.9 billion since the ACC was taken back under the wing of the government—it was, I believe, outsourced and ran up that unfunded liability to that degree—and it is continuing to be reduced. Premium prices are now set on a fully funded basis, covering the ongoing costs of the scheme.If we are going to ask the question about unfunded liabilities, I ask: to what degree is our health system technically unfunded, given that Medicare provides but a fraction? I forget how much it is, but a very small fraction of the total cost of health care in this country is contributed by the Medicare levy. I use the same argument to ask: what is the cost of not having a system in place that effectively delivers staged payments to people and basically covers, across the board, accident risk, leaving open cases of gross negligence to be pursued under common law processes?I believe such a scheme would alleviate the crisis that results from extreme downturns in the insurance market, especially after such things as the collapse of HIH and UMP medical insurers and international events such as September 11. I have a motion on the Notice Paper, No. 32, for an inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission into the feasibility of a Commonwealth scheme to alleviate the crisis in public liability, medical and other insurance. I refer members to the Notice Paper for the details, but essentially the scheme would provide for uniform national claim standards as well as regulation of medical defence organisations as insurance companies. Members should also note such a scheme is well within the Commonwealth government's powers under section 51(xiv) of the Constitution. It would be insurance by the people for the people.In summary, this debate is yet another example of serious discussion being denied in the House because of deals on the progress of bills. The expert panel looking at this very subject has a membership of three. The Mayor of Bathurst, Ian Macintosh, is a very distinguished member of the panel and has given me a couple of informal briefings on the extent of this process and just how complicated an issue it is and how difficult it is to wrestle with. But I am sure he and his fellow members will do the best job they can and come up with some substantial recommendations. This inquiry is also looking into the trade practices parts of the whole question. It is not due to report until Friday of this week, as far as I know. It would have been good to have had that report with us as we debated these particular changes, because surely any amendments to that legislation should and could have been introduced here in this chamber, rather than being shovelled off—as we tend to do—to the other place and substantially debated there. Any amendment to this legislation which results from this report is likely to be seen very late in the piece by the representatives of the electorate, when debate should be happening here. On that note, I welcome these amendments to the trade practices legislation but I caution the government to note that those practising in the adventure sport industry, in my electorate particularly, say that they do not believe that the waiver is sufficient on its own and that we must have some specific codes of conduct within the adventure industry.10:44:005918Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—The Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 implements a commitment made by the Commonwealth after a meeting of state and territory ministers held on 30 May 2002 and chaired by the Minister for Revenue, Senator the Hon. Helen Coonan. It was necessary to amend the Trade Practices Act due to the exorbitant increases in public liability insurance premiums in the past 11 months. Businesses involved in adventure tourism or extreme sporting activities are amongst those which are most seriously affected. Many are currently unable to find an underwriter to provide them with public liability cover or, if they are able to renew, the premium cost can, in some cases, be prohibitive.This bill will amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 so that individuals will have the capacity to waive their contractual right to sue when undertaking recreational activities which are inherently risky. The act at present prevents this from occurring. Whilst we may allow people to voluntarily waive their right to sue, it is important that balance is maintained. The government must achieve a balance that will protect both consumers and the many small business owners who derive their livelihoods from recreational activities. Consumers will be able to choose to waive their rights when involved in activities such as horse riding, bungee jumping and the like. They will be able to decide whether to accept the risks involved. The Trade Practices Act will continue to deliver protection to consumers. It will also promote an environment in which consumers have information, choice and the appropriate level of redress.None of us in this House would be unaware of the huge increases in public liability premiums that are said to be largely the result of the tragic events of September 11 and the collapse of HIH. I am sure all of us have had community groups, professional bodies and others come to us, concerned about either their inability to find an underwriter or about the cost of their insurance. While the events that I mentioned have played a part, it seems that there are other contributing factors to the concerns about public liability. Perhaps one of the drivers of these is the increasing trend for people not to accept responsibility for their own actions. In many cases, they now seek blame elsewhere and search for legal recompense and compensation. That is not to say that there are not cases where negligence does occur. Where that is demonstrably the case, compensation is due. But an attitude has now developed that it is always someone else's fault and that someone else has to pick up the tab.In many ways, we have adopted the approach of the United States. For instance, the previous speaker, the member for Calare, mentioned a case where a swimmer dived into the ocean and hit a sandbar, suffering very severe spinal injuries. Nobody would deny that that was an unfortunate and tragic accident. However, it is not always the case that there is somebody to blame for such an accident. The local council was held partially responsible for that injury and was made liable for compensation. Nonetheless, the local council did not create the beach, the swimming conditions or the state of mind or awareness of the swimmer on that day. We have to get away from the attitude that somebody else always has to pick up the tab, no matter how risky the particular activity or action is that an individual has taken. As I said, there are other forces at play, and an attitudinal change, which could well have contributed to the unsustainable heights of the public liability premiums.With some insurers moving out of the market, I question whether the remainder are in fact not taking advantage of the situation to boost their premium incomes and their profits. However, others are looking at that, and no doubt we will find out the truth in due course. There is certainly a case that some unscrupulous members of the legal fraternity have used the system to their own financial advantage. Some of them have been exposed recently in Queensland, in the current scandal surrounding the `no win, no fee' lawyers who have been operating in Brisbane. Genuine people who have been awarded compensation discover that the cost of their legal representation has resulted in all, or virtually all, of their compensation award being gobbled up by their lawyer. They then received an additional bill for further legal representation. Many of those people were of modest means with, in many cases, quite modest claims, but they have been left with, from their point of view, a relatively substantial legal bill. The responsibility for rectifying these abuses of the system lies squarely with state and territory governments. I am pleased to see that where the Commonwealth can show leadership and play a role, as they have with this very sensible legislation, they are doing so.Business always moves forward, whether it is the business of a doctor, an adventure tour operator or a sporting organisation. I notice in today's Australian Financial Review that, because business always goes forward, unfortunately, companies are taking matters into their own hands. Concerns are mounting in the business community that some companies are prepared to operate without insurance cover. A new survey has found that small businesses consider the cost and availability of insurance to be one of the biggest threats they face. The survey, by CPA Australia, interviewed 600 small businesses and found that 71 per cent of small businesses considered the lack of insurance cover as the biggest risk they faced, while 63 per cent believed that spiralling premiums would damage their performance. In my own area, I have become aware that some doctors choose to practise having moved all their assets out of their own name, into trusts or to other family members. Plainly, they want to continue to serve the community as rural doctors. They have a responsibility to the community which they feel very keenly. But they are faced with a situation where their insurance premiums are simply unsustainable. In the short term, some of them are making moves to be asset free. While that is a short-term answer, it will not serve the longer-term needs of the community in terms of those people who genuinely have grounds for a claim.As I said, business will move forward, whether it is the business of a doctor or an adventure tourism operator. It is very important that the Commonwealth has taken this very sensible measure, and that the states also—and not all of them have—move very quickly to reform their tort law. I congratulate the minister today on what I think has been significant leadership in a difficult debate about public liability, and for taking a lead with the states in ensuring that individuals who undertake inherently risky activities can waive their right to sue. This also allows those businesses to continue to operate and provide a service for those who need it. I commend the bill to the House.10:53:005920Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I know it is an unusual step, but I would like to add my support to the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002, and I thank the member for Rankin for his indulgence. This bill is a very important piece of legislation for the tourism industry in Australia and for the small business sector of the tourism industry. This issue was first raised back in January. People will remember that I raised the issue of public liability premiums back in January this year. After a short time in the job as tourism minister, it became immediately apparent that small business and the tourism industry generally were being crippled by massive premium increases in public liability insurance—that is, if they could actually obtain public liability insurance.One of the sectors most adversely affected has been the horse riding industry, which is part of the fabric of our nation. None of us will forget that fantastic sight at the beginning of the Olympics when numerous horse riders came into the stadium, displaying the great tradition of Australian culture. Horse riding is a part of the Australian culture, and we want to give as many young people as possible—particularly visiting young people—the opportunity to indulge in those sorts of adventure activities. We do not want to become a nation of people whose greatest day-to-day risk is switching on the TV or turning on the Sony PlayStation. We want to get out there and enjoy what is the most magnificent environment in the world: the great Australian outdoors. Unfortunately, for a large range of reasons, the massive increases in public liability premiums and the difficulty in obtaining public liability insurance have had a profoundly negative impact on the tourism industry.It has affected the electorate of the member for Dawson. I well remember going on a scuba dive on the Barrier Reef with the member for Dawson. We discussed with the operator out there the concept of signing a waiver, because scuba diving is a risky tourism activity. I signed the waiver, but the fact is that, if it was an incorporated organisation, that waiver had no effect in law because of the operation of the Trade Practices Act—yet I was assuming full responsibility for my actions, as far as I could legally at the time, by undertaking what I thought was a properly supervised scuba dive, and it was.I am really pleased that the opposition are supporting this amendment because it sends a very loud message to the legal profession and others that we in the Parliament of Australia want to go back to the days when people accepted personal responsibility for their actions. That is the way we were brought up and that feeling is very much a part of the Australian fabric. It is vitally important that that be reflected in law. This amendment does just that: ensures that people can go back to the days of accepting personal responsibility for their actions. I want to be able to accept personal responsibility for my actions in participating in recreational activities, be they weekend sport or tourism adventure activities.I still play competition cricket. Whilst there are some very quick bowlers in the Sydney City and Suburban Competition, I have been one of those people who, over the years, has decided never to wear a helmet. I will always wear other protective devices, but I will never put on a helmet. That is the risk I take. If I am hit in the head by a ball from one of those pretty quick bowlers who occasionally lob up on a Saturday afternoon, I accept personal responsibility for the act of not wearing a helmet. I do not want to be in a position—and I do not think the bowlers should be in the position—where there may be the risk of litigation. That is the current trend. The danger is that under the current system we are heading down a litigation path that is going to be as debilitating for general recreational activity in Australia as it is in the United States. No Australian wants to head down the path of prodigious litigation that the United States has gone down over the last few years. Unfortunately, that is the direction we have started to take over the last few years.I have never apologised for saying publicly that I believe the legal profession has to shoulder considerable responsibility for the development of a litigation culture in Australia. The Plaintiff Lawyers Association have been telling massive untruths in this debate. They know that the large increase in the number of claims in relation to public liability insurance has been just one of the reasons—but a significant reason—for the massive increase in premiums in public liability. The simple fact of the matter is that at the end of the day someone pays for increases in litigation—someone pays for every claim that is settled before it gets to court or in court. Ultimately, the people who pay are Australian consumers, either through higher insurance premiums or when they go to purchase a product and find that it is more expensive than they might initially have thought. I strongly support this bill. I take the opportunity to congratulate my colleague Senator Helen Coonan for this initiative. I know that Senator Coonan has been working extremely hard on this matter—trying to get the states into line has been the equivalent of herding cats. Some states have voiced strong support and others have gone to water. I am sure that the member for Deakin will draw to the attention of the House just one example where a state has gone to water in the face of a concerted campaign by the Plaintiff Lawyers Association and a number of other legal special interest groups. I commend this bill to the House. It is commonsense, it is practical and it is going to throw a lifeline to the Australian tourism industry, which, until now, some members of the legal profession have always chosen to ignore.11:00:005921Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I rise with great pleasure to support the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002. This is an issue which has occupied the minds of many of my constituents and those who use the wonderful recreational services within the Deakin electorate, not to mention those right around Australia. We have to ask: why do we need to introduce this bill? Part of the reason is that there has been a dramatic shift in society's attitudes. Some may say that its genesis extends back to September 11; others may say that, with the HIH collapse and medical indemnity, there was a snowball effect that took place amongst the insurance companies. Many argue that Australia is becoming a more litigious society. I for one think very much along those lines, and the Minister for Small Business and Tourism has outlined his concerns about plaintiff lawyers and their actions over the last few years.One of the realities is that personal injury claims have been increasing by approximately 10 per cent each year. This has been occurring for the past 20 years. Another interesting statistic to note is the size of bodily injury claims, averaging $25,000 per claim. The Trade Practices Act 1974 was designed to provide for the promotion of competition and fair trading and adequate protection for consumers. The cornerstone of any society is, quite simply, trade and the exchange of that trade, upon which the prosperity of a community depends. The notion of fair trade stems from that ideology of free trade and the freedom of that interchange without fear or favour. This interchange, however, does have at times a tendency to backfire. Put another way, because of the system within which businesses operate, the very nature of their transactions may lead to some form of risk. The Trade Practices Act states that, where a contract to provide goods or services exists, that transaction should also attract a duty of care and skill on behalf of the operator. If that law is breached, consumers have the option to go to court to seek damages. Currently, under the TPA, any action taken to waive a warranty of duty of care is not possible and, therefore, the concept of `buyer beware' does not apply. This bill seeks to address that problem with the aim of allowing companies that provide recreational services to contractually exclude the duty of care and skill component from the transaction. This is part of a national approach and it follows a very proactive role taken by the federal government and the Minister for Revenue, Senator Helen Coonan. Senator Coonan has been very proactive. She has initiated a strategy to attack insurance premium increases by calling on all state governments to come together, analyse what the issues are, identify the root of the problems and then introduce complementary legislation. We cannot afford to waste our time trying to find someone or something to blame for those insurance premium rises. What is important is that our national approach be wholeheartedly supported across the legislative jurisdictions. I will discuss some of my concerns about one of these jurisdictions a little later. A number of businesses in a number of industries have been hit hard by the public liability crisis—a crisis which, it must be emphasised, has not been dismissed by this government. However, it is a crisis that essentially rests in the hands of state governments to manage—a management process that has been somewhat lacking in my great state of Victoria. This bill is fairly and squarely aimed at a segment of the Australian business sector hit hard by rising public liability insurance premium increases. In my electorate of Deakin, there have been a number of businesses that have made representations to me based on public liability concerns within the recreational services sector. The most notable of these, featured on the front page of the Herald Sun a matter of two or three weeks ago, was that of the Nunawading Basketball Centre. It is one of the examples of the hardship encountered as a result of the public liability crisis. Faced with no insurance, the centre, which hosts 7,000 basketball players from across metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria every week, was preparing to close its doors for good. The centre made inquiries with the state government—and rightly so, as public liability, as I mentioned earlier, falls within their jurisdiction. Yet, at the eleventh hour, Mr Dennis O'Brien, the CEO of the Nunawading Basketball Centre, cried out for help and understanding. As was explained to me by Mr O'Brien, thousands of families rely on the centre for sport and recreation. The centre had been unable, until that stage, to secure insurance to allow the sport to continue. After a number of telephone calls and representations, a solution was arrived at. I wish to put on record the excellent work of the state opposition members in the eastern suburbs, such as the shadow minister and member for Box Hill, Robert Clark, and the Hon. Bruce Atkinson, the member for Koonung province. Their active support throughout this episode helped the Nunawading Basketball Centre to address its crisis. Another key player in that was Mr Russell Hannan, the Liberal candidate for Mitcham and, through his involvement, the insurance broker Geoff Ellis. They were able to get a cover note through Affinity Insurance Brokers, which provided Mr Dennis O'Brien with the breathing space he sorely needed and kept the centre open. After that intervention the bleak fate of the Nunawading Basketball Centre seemed a little brighter. The Bracks government's assistance in this matter was pathetic, to say the least. The assistance by the state member for Mitcham, Tony Robinson, was pathetic—basically nonexistent. John Lenders, the state Minister for Finance, and the sports minister, Justin Madden, showed fleeting interest in the plight of the centre. The approach by the Bracks government has led to other businesses facing the same destiny. The best that John Lenders could do was to put them in touch with a small broker and then simply wash his hands like Pontius Pilate, saying, `It is not my responsibility; I have done my bit.'Another business in my electorate is The Hardrock Climbing Company. As its name suggests, it is a rock climbing company based in Nunawading. Ms Susan Floyed, owner of the company, was also preparing to close her doors to the public because of the cost of insurance. Like the Nunawading Basketball Centre, many users of the services at Hardrock were upset that insurance premiums had placed the future of the company in jeopardy. The stories of the Hardrock Climbing Company and the Nunawading Basketball Centre have given further rise to the need for a national approach to this issue. As others have noted, perhaps all too infrequently, the administration of public liability and insurance falls under the jurisdiction of the state governments. It is also important to note in the context of this debate that ultimately the state governments must introduce legislation in their parliaments to ensure consistency with the Commonwealth legislation.I am advised that the Victorian Bracks government have not done so. Yet the Bracks government, through the Minister for Finance, John Lenders, stood up and said that they had stepped in at the eleventh hour to save the Hardrock Climbing Company. In the short term the problem has been given a bandaid solution. However, over time that bandaid will wear off and the problem will resurface unless a consistent tactic is employed through legislation. One would assume that the Bracks government have become a pseudo insurance broker basically jumping from one crisis to another. That is not the function of good government; good government is about the development and implementation of a plan which will give security to the industry and give them a sense of knowing that their businesses will survive during this crisis. There are no plans at this stage. The only plan so far that has been introduced into state parliament is one by the opposition shadow minister, Mr Bill Forwood.I note that negotiations have been entered into with Suncorp GIO, which means that Australian businesses in the adventure tourism industry have greater public liability access that simply did not exist prior to the reforms. I note an article by Richard Baker in yesterday's Age entitled `Chamber blames Bracks for insurance crisis'. In this article the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive, Neil Coulson, blames the Bracks government for floundering at the expense of business and industry. He states:While all other mainland states have pressed ahead with such reform, the Victorian Government appears to have sat on its hands.The fact remains that the Bracks government have been slack on public liability. As I mentioned earlier, this is in stark contrast to what is happening here in the federal parliament and in stark contrast to the position of the Victorian opposition, which has been pressuring the Bracks government to educate business owners about the public liability crisis before it comes to a head. Through the efforts of Robert Clark, the then shadow Treasurer in Victoria, this push by the opposition for education has been very strong. However, the Victorian government have failed. I note that the Victorian Minister for Finance is quoted in the Age yesterday as saying: ... the government would have a package of reforms ready to be introduced to parliament early next month.This is a case of leaving it to the last minute. Meanwhile Victorian businesses in the adventure tourism industry are left wondering when the Bracks government will follow the lead of the federal government and other states. The Bracks government seems to have lots of plans which it is about to announce. The legislation is always in the pipeline rather than being brought out and introduced in the Victorian parliament. We will probably have an election before that takes place.This bill is about providing more options to business owners in the face of increasing insurance premiums. Critics of this bill may say that the bill removes protection of consumers. There are a number of reasons why this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps most significantly, any protection of businesses against liability for inherently risky activities should not, and does not, include gross negligence. Therefore the law recognises the need for reasonable duty of care and skill. However, as we have come to realise, the term `gross negligence' is not actually recognised in Australian tort law. In the preparation of this bill, this matter was addressed; put purely and simply the operators are still required to exercise a duty of care in the provision of a service and the conduct of a business. It is not enough for the operators just simply to say, `I am absolving myself of my part in the transaction process'. They still need to play their part as well. This duty of care is therefore implied to protect the consumer against conduct amounting to a reckless disregard for, or creation of, a serious risk to the consumer.I am very pleased to support this bill. I am disappointed in the Bracks government's lack of action which has created a lot of insecurity in Victoria. I know that ultimately we must acknowledge the indisputable fact that public liability insurance is in crisis in Victoria and getting worse. I would like to ask the Victorian government what they are planning to do for constituents of mine, who are constantly contacting my office out of frustration at their inability to get answers from the state government. I will mention one other example, that of Lyn Martin of Croydon. She is the owner and operator of Kidstar Kastles, an organisation providing fun and enjoyment to kids in the Deakin area. She deals with the hiring of children's jumping castles—what greater fun pursuit is there? If you have ever been to a kids birthday party, you will know that a jumping castle is like a magnet to children. Lyn has built the business to a point where it was manageable and relatively profitable. She was told by her insurer that they would no longer carry her policy, and she was left in despair. My office informed Lyn that this legislation may have some impact on her in the future but that it relies on the state government passing complementary legislation. Lyn accepted this viewpoint. She called my office again yesterday, after having been frustrated by the state government, to say she could no longer afford to wait for the state government's actions. I regret to inform the House that Lyn had no option but to close her business. She had pursued the matter with the state government and was told that there was nothing they could do. This is one small business that has gone to the wall because of state government inaction.We pride ourselves in this place on the small businesses that have been created in the last few years. The Minister for Small Business and Tourism mentioned only this week that 47,000 new small businesses have come into being since July 2000. Yet, against our efforts to create small business, we have state governments—particularly in Victoria through Bracks, Lenders and all the other state members—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Rob Hulls. He is a donkey.ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESI—and Rob Hulls—who are absolutely destroying the great job creation and business creation opportunities that are out there. There is plenty that the Bracks government could do. Instead of using a polyfill tactic to solve problems in the short term, Premier Bracks should, as a matter of urgency, introduce and debate legislation in the state parliament to mirror the federal government's legislation. They agreed to do it back in May; we are almost into September and there is a possible election in November. What we are left with is the state opposition in Victoria introducing the Adventure Activities Protection Bill 2002. Obviously the state parliament is in recess at the moment and that bill cannot be debated. This does highlight the fact that the Bracks government have no sense of priority when it comes to introducing legislation that would help small business. Victorian businesses will continue to have difficulty in obtaining insurance, and more businesses will be placed in jeopardy. I am pleased to support this bill. It does send a very strong message to businesses in Deakin that this federal government is fair dinkum about helping them. It also sends a message that the Victorian government, by their inaction, is not fair dinkum. I hope that we do not have any more Lyn Martin stories in my electorate, or anywhere in Australia, because of state government inaction. I am very pleased to be able to support this bill.11:17:005925Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—I am delighted to rise in support of the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002. I believe that the public liability insurance challenge has been the greatest community challenge facing Australia over the course of the last half year. There has been an increase in public liability insurance claims, from 55,000 to 88,000, between 1998 and 2000. Trowbridge Consulting reported that personal injury claims have increased by 10 per cent a year for the last 20 years or more. It is estimated that insurance premiums across the board will increase by 30 per cent in 2002—and up to 74 per cent in the case of recreational service providers. These are significant problems.I want to start by talking about the actions of the Commonwealth; in particular, I want to pay tribute to the work of the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, Senator Helen Coonan, and the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, the Hon. Joe Hockey, both of whom have lived and breathed this problem over the last six months. I want to compare that with the situation in my home state of Victoria which, as my friend and colleague the member for Deakin has just pointed out, has seen a state of extraordinary inaction to the point where it was announced yesterday that a major national insurer would re-enter the insurance market throughout Australia—except for Victoria. What an extraordinary indictment. The reason is that there has been no action to put in place an adequate public liability insurance protection regime in Victoria. Why? Because the parliament has not sat. The parliament no longer sits in Victoria. It is an optional extra. It is an add-on to the democratic process.In drawing that comparison, I want to deal with this question in four stages. The first stage is to examine the problem. At a human level, what does it mean for businesses? The second stage is to look at the causes at a systemic level. The third stage is to look at some of the solutions which the Commonwealth has proposed and which the Commonwealth and the states have agreed to act upon—but, in Victoria, it sits idly on the table. Finally, in the fourth stage I want to examine the specific provisions of this bill.I will go first to the problem. At the level of farmers, they are concerned about trespassers making claims and, as a result, they are having difficulty acquiring public liability insurance. Often we find that federal, state and local governments require that a community or a volunteer organisation obtains public liability insurance to receive funding. There is the question of not just voluntary organisations but also commercial organisations—those elements which fall under the Commonwealth's responsibility and which the Commonwealth, through this legislation, is taking action on. Thousands of businesses and voluntary organisations throughout Australia have been affected, particularly within my electorate. I have dealt with the Minister for Small Business and Tourism in the case of the Arthur's Seat Chairlift. This is a business which had had no claim in 30 years—not a single claim for negligence in 30 years—yet it was initially denied public liability insurance. We took action at the national level to deal with that claim, and I thank both the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business and Tourism for their support on this issue. It was similar with the Ace-Hi Ranch. We negotiated to the death with the state government. What was a foreseeable issue had to become a death's door crisis before there was action in the last 24 hours to save that business's future. Ron Neary, the managing director and CEO of Ace-Hi Ranch runs a magnificent business on Boneo Road, Cape Schank. This business has a fantastic safety record, yet it was pushed right to the edge. It was told that it would have to be facing extinction before the state government would step in to help. What an extraordinary situation. Balnarring Pony Club, the Mornington Pony Club and other pony clubs have had dramatic problems. The Westernport Marina Yacht Squadron had to close down because it was unable to obtain public liability insurance. This is a real issue that is within the province of the state government, which has failed to act and to undertake its constitutional responsibility. This is a true example of negligence in the sense of governance.There are three principal causes of this problem. Firstly, there is the issue of competition. There was the collapse of HIH Insurance, as well as the collapse of the Independent Insurance Company in the United Kingdom. The NRMA now refuses to provide public liability insurance. AAMI and the RACV provide much more limited access to public liability insurance. There have been some bad management practices and the competition within the industry is a problem. This is linked to the second issue: the growth in litigation. There has been a significant growth in the numbers and types of cases for which awards are given and also the quantum of damages.There was the extraordinary case recently of a windfall payout for someone who had dived into a sandbank at a Sydney beach and who allegedly was suffering from the effects of intoxication and drug use. The result was the ludicrous situation whereby the relevant authorities were made to pay out a significant amount for failing to notify that there might have been a risk of hitting an underwater sandbank. There is no premium within the court system at the moment on plain commonsense.Personal responsibility is one of the key principles which the government believe in and which is a philosophy of the party. We seek to reintroduce that both at the level of social discussion and also through this legislation. It is about the notion that individuals step up to take responsibility. Of course there must be protection against genuine negligence, but we do not want to live in a society which encourages windfall payouts. Ultimately, the effect of that, which is played out in the court system, is to destroy those things that allow us diversity within our society, whether it be horse riding, water events or ropes and adventure. These activities are a natural part of risk taking in our society, and people who choose to take them on are putting themselves at risk. They are now at risk of being expunged from the range of activities that, as a society, we can undertake. That is where this bill comes in.The third of the causes, on top of the problem of lack of competition and the growth in litigation, was September 11. September 11 drew $60 billion out of the international reinsurance market in the cost of covering both the human and material damage that occurred on that day. Those three factors taken together have created a public liability crisis that has affected individuals, organisations and corporations across Australia.What are the solutions to this problem? I will briefly outline some of my own actions and, more importantly, some of the government's actions. In January, I wrote to the Prime Minister and suggested the terms of reference for a committee to inquire into and report upon four things. The first one was the problems of obtaining public liability insurance at a reasonable and affordable price, the reasons for that and the means for overcoming or alleviating them. The second one was the effect of those problems on the public interest, and the best means of overcoming or alleviating these adverse effects. The third one was the justification or otherwise of the premiums currently demanded by insurers. The fourth one was whether any legislative requirements for public liability should be abandoned or revised; if so, which ones; and what restraints should be placed upon public liability claims and class actions. This bill follows directly from that line of thought, which was picked up not only by me but also by many others.In March I also wrote to the Attorney-General, the Minister for Revenue and the Minister for Small Business and Tourism suggesting a four-point plan, the first of which was to legislate a standard for the genuine enforceability of public liability waivers. That is the basis upon which this bill is founded. The second point was the capping of certain classes of liability claims, which is a matter for the states under the federation and is one that we hope they will pick up. The third point was lowering or waiving the necessity for maximum amounts of public liability insurance so that community groups and operators can conduct their business in line with any capping provisions. The fourth point was offering the prospect of working with local government to provide group insurance coverage for community groups. This leads to the issue of the government's actions.The government has taken three core actions. Firstly, despite the fact that this is primarily a state responsibility, the Commonwealth government has stepped up to the plate. It has more than met its responsibilities. It convened a meeting in March with the state ministers and then followed it up with a meeting with the heads of treasuries to assess nationally the problem of public liability insurance and the way it could be dealt with. Secondly, the government convened another meeting on 30 May to consider the findings of the working group. The meeting agreed that there would be an increase in responses to public liability. It examined approaches for dealing with nonprofit organisations and assisting voluntary organisations. Thirdly, it established the basis for the current Commonwealth inquiry, which is being done at a quick pace and is due to report in the very near future. This bill is the first part of that action. In looking at the elements of the current bill, what is it that we see? We see that it proposes to insert a new section into the Trade Practices Act 1974. This new section 68B would allow for consumers to waive their rights to sue when participating in inherently risky recreational activities that could cause injury. So if we embark upon an action which we know to be risky, we take that risk ourselves. Horse riding has an inherent risk; parachuting has an inherent risk. A business can take proper and appropriate precautions, all of which are fair and reasonable, but even with those precautions there are the vicissitudes of nature, weather and life which make those activities more risky. This bill says that individuals can opt to take responsibility for themselves. It establishes a clear proposition that basic commonsense says that individuals can step up and take responsibility for their own actions.In essence, the bill proposes that `a term of a contract for the supply by a corporation of recreational services is not void under section 68'—which concerns the validity of contracts—`by reason only that the term excludes, restricts or modifies or has the effect of excluding, restricting or modifying' other elements within the Trade Practices Act which cause businesses to undertake public liability insurance and to take responsibility for any negligence. The bill allows consumers to waive their rights when participating in risky recreational activities that could cause injury; however, it does create key protections. It does not free a business from responsibility for gross negligence. It does ensure that a duty of care must always be exercised—which is the basic principle under both contract law and tort law, which are relevant in this case. Above all else, it foreshadows the further action that we know may come from the additional report which the government is about to bring down. All of these elements mean that the Ace-Hi Ranch and other organisations within my electorate of Flinders are much more likely to be able to carry out their businesses now than they were previously. It is more likely that they will be able to obtain insurance and obtain it at a reasonable and fair rate. We will compare this with what has occurred in Victoria. As my colleague the member for Deakin pointed out, in the Age newspaper on Tuesday, 27 August there was the headline `Chamber blames Bracks for insurance crisis'. The Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce made it absolutely clear that the Victorian government was lagging behind the rest of Australia. Suncorp GIO have decided to re-enter the public liability insurance market throughout Australia—except in Victoria, where, because of the failure of the state government to introduce the necessary reforms, there is no adequate protection. They believe that the situation in Victoria is not sufficiently covered.We live in a federation. The principal responsibility for the management of tort law and for contract relationships between individuals and corporations rests with the states. Despite that fact, the Commonwealth has taken a lead on this issue. This bill fulfils the Commonwealth's responsibilities and makes a significant difference to the capacity of individuals to participate in inherently risky activities which, if they choose to do so of their own free will, they will take responsibility for. It also makes a significant difference to the capacity of businesses to provide that protection. But there is more to it than that—and that is the responsibility of the states. There has been a complete failure to carry out that responsibility in my home state of Victoria. I commend this bill to the House, and I urge the Victorian government to recall parliament at the earliest possible time to fulfil their responsibilities to the people of Victoria. They should also fulfil their responsibilities under the Commonwealth-state agreement. That will ensure that ordinary citizens, whether in Red Hill or Cape Schank, can carry on their adventure activities as they see fit and with protection. Above all else, they should have the freedom to carry out those activities which are part and parcel of Australian life.11:35:005928McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am delighted to participate yet again in the debate on the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002. This debate goes to the very fabric of Australian society: volunteerism and the smaller groups throughout the country. Small business is also very much troubled by public liability premiums and the aspects that they might be caught by in a public liability claim. This bill goes to the very heart of the difficulty facing insurers and members of the community, and hopefully it addresses the `pot of gold' mentality that, if there is an accident, as the member for Flinders has alluded to, the public thinks it is in order to sue and seek excessive damages. This will be a move in the right direction to encourage personal responsibility for the dangers associated with riskier activities. The federal government, with the introduction of this change to the Trade Practices Act, will assist the states. As the member for Flinders has so carefully said, some states are not helping to bring about any changes to the whole problem of public liability.I will refer to the Trowbridge report, because it encompasses a number of the issues that members have been talking about in the parliament and, of course, that our constituents have been discussing over the last three or four months. The Trowbridge report, as members would be aware, was a document prepared for the Commonwealth Treasury for a meeting on 27 March. It is interesting that the executive summary covers the issues that I have covered in previous speeches in the parliament on matters for public debate. The report states: Public liability insurance is insurance for claims by third parties ... for personal injury or property damage caused by or attributable to the negligence of the insured.That is fairly obvious, and we would be aware that property damage and personal damage develop different aspects of the law. It goes on to state:Other types of liability insurance which are not public liability insurance are:· motor vehicle third party insurance—which we are all aware of—· workers' compensation—which, in Victoria, was changed under the Kennett government to remove the excessive common law claims—· professional indemnity—again, a problem for professional people—· products liability.The problem we are facing, which every person in the community is aware of, is the crisis in public insurance: the very high premiums that are now being demanded and, of course, the ability to find public liability insurance. In some cases, it is just not available. There is also the increasing cost of claims. The Trowbridge report states that there is a significant increase in personal injury claims—more than 10 per cent, on average, per year, which has been going on for 20 years. That is a very interesting statistic. The report notes that the claims can be very large and have a very `long tail'. That, in common language, means that it takes a long while to settle these personal claims—up to four or five years in some cases.With regard to the insurance market crisis—which I will allude to in a moment—the report states that clearly insurers underpriced the business during most of the 1990s, that insurers have difficulty in assessing the risk and that insurers are now determined, in the interests of their shareholders, not to underprice the risks. The report goes on to state that, in 2002, increases in premiums are likely to average 30 per cent or more. As we are all aware, the collapse of HIH took out a cut-price insurer. The Trowbridge report highlights some interesting issues under its `Framework for solutions': the underlying cost of claims, particularly in the bodily injury area; the insurance market crisis; the targeting of particular community groups such as sporting organisations, tourism and leisure—and the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 aims to help in that area; and the broadly based area of all segments of public liability claims.The report outlines the range of possible claim cost responses—I am just referring to the executive summary in the interests of time—and suggests that the broadly based public liability claims could:Re-write the tort law to bring the standard of negligence back to a reasonable person's approach and away from strict liability. I commend that point, and I agree that we should get back to a reasonable position on public liability rather than have a very fine-print, lawyer's interpretation of the law. Other possible responses are:Reforms to the legal system to reduce the cost and/or amount of litigation:· control legal advertising—I think all of us would agree with that—· regulate legal fees· change `no win no pay' arrangements—I think everyone would agree that legal practitioners promote this `no win, no fee' position which does not encourage people to act in a reasonable manner—· change uplift fee arrangements· increased the risk involved in unsuccessful litigation through costs arrangements· mandate alternative dispute resolution systems.The final possible response is:An education campaign to change the increasing litigiousness of our community.So we have the Trowbridge report and the discussion paper, and I think the executive summary raises some of the issues that are encompassed in this bill. The working party reported on 30 May and it had the following comments to make. It said that there should be a target initiative for the not-for-profit groups—which, again, this bill before the House helps. Some of its proposals are:Legislate to allow self assumption of risk for people who choose to participate in inherently risk activities such as adventure tourism and sports—and a number of those activities are in the electorate of Corangamite—Protect volunteers from being sued except for gross negligence, by way of an indemnity from the organisation for which they work ...Again, I think that is a very important aspect, because volunteers that I have spoken to are now becoming very apprehensive about working for organisations for which they have worked for a lifetime. It continues:Protect certain not-for-profit and community organisations from being sued except for gross negligence.Protect volunteers who work for not-for-profit organisations by giving them coverage under workers' compensation legislation.I think the Trowbridge report identifies these problems and provides an intelligent assessment of this public liability crisis.I would like to refer to an article by Stephen Bartholomeusz in the Age of Friday, 12 July 2002. The headline reads `Rises in insurance premiums are structural, not taking advantage'. He quotes a number of senior figures in the insurance industry, and I think the article does summarise the world insurance problem. The article quotes Henri de Castries, the chief executive of AXA, as saying that about $US50 billion were lost because of the September 11 incident. The article then states that Dr Roberts, of APRA, did not believe that insurers were using the industry crisis to exacerbate their premiums and recoup their losses. He says:The fact is, Australian policyholders have been getting a free ride in the form of unduly cheap premiums for a number of years. That is an interesting aspect. I think all of us ought to be aware that there has been an ongoing problem in the insurance industry. The article goes on to state:The massive overcapacity in the industry through the 1990s meant that few general insurers came close to breaking even at an underwriting level. It also meant that under the pressure of competition, they underpriced risk.I think we all ought to be aware of this condition in the insurance industry: that premiums are also rising because of the problems facing the shareholders of insurance companies. The article continues:The 1990s bull market generated investment returns that were consistently in the mid-teens. That may have been a contributing factor to the poor pricing of risk through the decade, with underwriting losses being more than offset by unprecedented investment profits.So there are other factors involved in the insurance crisis facing the average small business and the average not-for-profit organisation. We have excessive litigation in Australia. A litigious culture is developing here similar to that in the USA. I was pleased to hear the Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Bob Carr, who is not from my party, in a Sunday program interview on 14 July draw the attention of viewers to the example of a female who had 16 drinks at a licensed club, walked out of that club, was hit by a motor car, sued the club for serving her 16 drinks and obtained $400,000 compensation from the club. The decision was reversed on appeal. As the Premier of New South Wales indicated, there was a total lack of personal responsibility in that particular incident. The whole community was paying the $400,000 by way of premiums. The Premier of New South Wales indicated that he intends to introduce the personal responsibility bill. I commend him for bringing about a change of attitude: if an accident takes place then the person involved has to take some responsibility, all things being equal. The Premier went on to say on the Sunday program: This country is tying itself up in tape over litigation, a long-term trend to see us litigate for everything, to try to settle every problem in our lives, in our society by getting a big cash payment from the courts. It's there in defamation, its there in public liability, and I want to see that reined in ... A country as small as ours cannot afford to have the American style culture of litigation. I entirely agree with the sentiments of the Premier of New South Wales and I wish him well in his endeavours to rein in this problem as best he can. There is a need to readdress the duty of care and make it more reasonable. We need it to apply to the major risk factors. The operators of recreational services need to ensure that they take a risk assessment and that we, again, apply the principle of commonsense and reasonableness to these risky activities. The purpose of the bill before the House is to amend the Trade Practices Act so that those companies that provide these recreational services, which have an inherent risk associated with them, are able to exclude their implied contractual liability for death or personal injury. The states have been using the lack of this change to the Trade Practices Act as a reason not to make a move. As the member for Flinders alluded to in his speech, the Victorian government has used this factor. This bill, when passed by the House of Representatives and the parliament, will enable the states to make these necessary changes and exclude this contractual liability. Within the detail of section 74 of the Trades Practices Act 1974 there is an implied warranty of due care and skill. Where a corporation supplies services to a consumer there is an implied warranty that the services will be rendered with due care and skill. This act does not allow the states to make a change to the provision of these services which have a certain element of risk. The material supplied in relation to the act has to be reasonably fit for the services and you can sue for damages for breach of contract under the Trade Practices Act. This bill permits companies that supply recreational services to exclude the warranty of care and skill. We need to really understand the impact of this important legislation. It is a step in the right direction. It assists the states with their legislation and it will assist small businesses conduct their affairs in this area of high-risk activities. We have had cases in Victoria where adventure tourism and horse riding activities, which I have in the electorate of Corangamite, have had great difficulty getting any insurance at all, let alone pay the $500 or $1,000 increases in their premiums. The Trowbridge report developed these arguments which have now come to fruition in this bill. The waivers and disclaimers allowed in this bill can actually be understood by the courts. The waiver has, in some cases, been a defence against a personal injury claim where the supplier of the service has complied with the relevant safety and risk assessments. There is an assumption by the individual of the risk involved. However, under the current arrangements the courts will not exclude the liability for negligence because the activity involves inherent risk. Currently under the common law people can sign waivers excusing the suppliers of services of negligence. The important thing for the House to understand is that the courts have over time had a bias against such disclaimers. Even where a disclaimer is made in good faith the courts have generally found, if negligence has occurred, in favour of the applicant who is seeking negligence rather than upheld the disclaimer that has been put forward. We need to be aware of that. This law will bring about a change so that those services that operate activities which are considered to have a certain inherent risk will be able to put forward a disclaimer and have that stand up in a court of law and have the risk associated with the activity moved back to the individual who can understand what he is undertaking, be it water sports, snow sports, adventure tourism activities or other types of activities. It will mean that those operators will be able to get insurance because the cost of insurance will not be prohibitive. Individuals will be encouraged to take personal responsibility for undertaking skydiving, snow sports and those sorts of activities. At long last, in this very difficult and complex area of the law associated with personal behaviour, insurance premiums and juries awarding so-called excessive amounts to individuals who have suffered bodily damage, we have a move in the right direction. This bill before the House will make a change to the Trade Practices Act and allow state governments to adjust their legislation to ensure there is progress in this very difficult area of public liability insurance. I commend the bill. I note in concluding that this, as I said in my opening remarks, is a fundamental problem facing Australian society. If we continue to have people who think that, by litigation and utilising certain legal firms, they can find the so-called pot of gold, the $200,000, then this society will be greatly reduced in its moral attitudes towards self-help and taking on personal responsibility. In the good old Australian tradition of the early diggers and settlers, they had no cover by insurance but understood the risks and pioneered Australia. It is this spirit that I wish to reinstate. The Premier of New South Wales put it so eloquently, and I think there is a fundamental philosophical position that we are debating in the parliament today. We have made a step forward. There is a lot more yet to be done in the whole area of personal responsibility of insurance premiums and assessing the various risks. I hope we do not get to the American position where litigation is the answer to anyone's problems; I hope we retain our self-reliant, independent attitude that what we do as individuals we undertake as our own responsibility.11:53:005931Hartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER00AMMCowperNP10—I rise in this House today to speak on the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002. The electorate of Cowper, which I represent, has a vibrant tourist industry with a very diverse tourism product. Much of that product is in the area of adventure tourism—inherently risky activities. We have some very fine white water rafting operators. You can go sea kayaking, scuba diving, go-kart driving, ice-skating and—although many of the members in this House would not be aware of this—it is one of the few places in a subtropical environment where you can go snow skiing in the middle of summer. We have an indoor snow slope at the Big Banana. But the problem with the snow slope at the Big Banana is that it is currently not operating to anything like its full potential. The reason it is not operating is the lack of public liability insurance.I am sure all the members of this House would agree that it is in the interests of our community and in the interests of employment opportunities that tourism operators are able to run their businesses under a reasonable public liability system. Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, I am sure that you could be tempted away from your very fine electorate of Wannon to experience some of the joys of the electorate of Cowper and some of those exciting activities. But those exciting activities will not be continuing unless the cost of public liability is reined in. We are all aware that, for many community groups, the cost of public liability insurance premiums has resulted in various community events not going ahead. Many fine events in my electorate have not occurred this year for the first time for many decades. But adventure tourism with high-risk activity is probably affected more than most. I am pleased that the Assistant Treasurer has taken the lead in this matter to bring the state and federal governments together to address this vital issue. The public liability issue is vital to our tourism industry and to employment in the electorate of Cowper.This bill allows companies who supply recreational services to exclude their implied contractual liability for death or personal injury where services are provided with due skill and care. It allows people to take responsibility for their own actions in relation to an inherently risky activity. That is a very important point: it enables people to take responsibility for their own actions and choices.The bill also attempts to address the imbalance in the legal position for providers of recreational services. Section 74 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 states that in a contract where a corporation supplies services to a consumer, there is an implied warranty that the services will be rendered with due skill and that the material supplied in connection with the services will be reasonably fit for that purpose. The remedy for a breach of the implied warranty is for the consumer to bring an action to recover damages for breach of contract. By virtue of section 68 of the Trade Practices Act, a provision in a contract that seeks to exclude warranty implied by section 74—such clauses are currently being referred to as waivers—will be rendered void. This bill is intended to permit companies that supply recreational services to enforce contractual terms which seek to exclude the warranty of due care and skill implied by section 74. There was a time that, when a claim for negligence occurred in a risky activity, the defence could allege that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risks involved in the activity under the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria. The reform of public liability insurance has required cooperation between state and federal governments. While the responsibility for tort law rests overwhelmingly with the states, proponents of reform have argued that Commonwealth action is necessary to support this process. In March 2002, the New South Wales Treasurer, Mr Egan, said that the New South Wales government had obtained legal advice indicating that any change made by the states to tort law for personal injury cases would only have limited effect unless the Commonwealth amended the Trade Practices Act. He suggested that the warranty of due care and skill implied into consumer contracts with corporations by section 74 of the Trade Practices Act could allow plaintiff lawyers to frustrate state tort law reform by pursuing a personal injury damages claim under the contract rather than through an action in negligence. Any state law that sought to make waivers enforceable under contract law for a corporation supplying services to consumers would be inconsistent with the Trade Practices Act and therefore invalid under section 109 the Constitution.At the meeting of ministers in May, the Commonwealth announced that it would legislate to allow self-assumptions of risks for people who choose to participate in inherently risky activities, such as adventure tourism and sports, but would ensure that consumers retained adequate protections under the Trade Practices Act. The states undertook to introduce mirror legislation where required. This bill gives effect to the undertaking given by the Commonwealth. There are a number of significant advantages involved in using waivers or the enforcement of waivers. By allowing waivers, we allow a transfer of risk from the person supplying the service to the person undertaking the activity. I think members would have to agree that, if someone were to jump from a perfectly good aeroplane with a parachute, there is certainly a reasonable degree of risk which that person should be required to accept in such an activity. The enforcement of waivers allows individuals their right to contract and enables suppliers to be relieved from the burden of the very unpredictable risks that can occur in such hazardous activities as white water rafting—which almost inevitably results in a number of bumps and scrapes on any decent journey—or perhaps the risks that would be involved in driver error when driving at a go-kart facility. I know that operators such as Bob Palmer and Suzanne Button of Liquid Assets would be pleased with the intent of the bill, as would Kevin Rubie of the Big Banana and Chris Piggott from Raleigh raceway. I am certain that they would applaud the intent of the bill and what it is attempting to do on behalf of our tourism industry.How does this bill do this? The bill inserts a new section, 68B, into the Trade Practices Act, with the intention of permitting companies that 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 skill and care. The new section states that:(1) A term of a contract for the supply ... of recreational services ... that ... excludes, restricts or modifies ... (a) the application of section 74 ... or (b) the exercise of a right conferred by section 74 ... or (c) any liability of the corporation for a breach of a warranty implied by section 74 ...is not void under section 68, provided that the contract was entered into after the commencement of this amendment and provided that it relates to liability for death or personal injury. The new section 68B will not, for example, permit suppliers to limit their liability in relation to property damage incurred as a result of the breach of the warranty implied by section 74. The new section 68B(2) defines recreational services as: (a) a sporting activity or a similar leisure-time pursuit; or (b) any other activity that: (i) involves a significant degree of physical exertion or physical risk; and (ii) is undertaken for the purposes of recreation, enjoyment or leisure.Significant progress has been made under the leadership of the federal government with regard to public liability. At the meetings of state and federal ministers held in both March and May, it was outlined that the primary responsibility for tort law rested with the states. Since these meetings, we have made very substantial progress. As a result, the states have carried out certain actions which I would like to discuss. I will spend a few moments going through the contribution that New South Wales has made. The New South Wales government, to its credit, has introduced the Civil Liability Bill 2002 to implement stage 1 of the government's tort law reform program. It has also announced details of stage 2 of that program, and that will be introduced in the spring session in September 2002.The key features of stage 1 include: upper limits for economic loss and loss of earnings; the application 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; and penalties for making unmeritorious claims. The key features to be addressed in stage 2 of the reform include: waivers and voluntary assumptions of risk; establishment of a realistic duty of care; protection for volunteers under good Samaritan legislation—and I am sure all members would agree that that is a good thing; defences against negligence claims for public authorities; structured settlements; and drugs and alcohol to be taken into account when assessing negligence.The Victorian government has acted on a sector-by-sector basis to assist groups most severely disadvantaged by the lack of availability of public liability insurance or by great price increases. It has created a groups insurance scheme for community organisations to operate from 1 June 2002 in conjunction with the Municipal Association of Victoria, and it has provided a grant of $330,000 to the association for the development of risk mitigation activities that are linked to community group insurance schemes. Also, it has provided $100,000 to adventure tourism operators to assist them in preparing risk management plans and audits.Victoria has committed to finalise a legislative package in the spring session of parliament that includes: a provision of waivers that will allow people to accept responsibility for their participation in risky activities; protection of volunteers and good Samaritans from the risk of being sued; proper risk management and accreditation frameworks for businesses and organisations; and enabling substantial amounts of damages to be paid in regular instalments or structured settlements instead of as lump sums. I think all members would agree that there are benefits in providing for structured settlements under our public liability system rather than paying lump sums where, if the money is squandered or not used for the purposes for which it is intended, ultimately the community may be left with the problem of looking after an injured person. The Victorian government is also looking at the improvement of legal procedures surrounding claims to enable quicker, cheaper and less stressful determination of civil liabilities disputes; at ensuring that saying `sorry' does not represent an admission of liability; and at removing the right to claim damages where the injury was suffered through criminal activity or whilst under the influence of drugs. Victoria has stated that it remains committed to working with all jurisdictions to implement a national approach to dealing with public liability insurance, and that has to be a good thing. In Queensland, they are well advanced with regard to bringing together a buying group for community organisations which is due to commence on 1 September 2002. The Queensland government has approved the drafting of a personal injuries proceedings bill which was originally proposed for introduction in mid-June. Among other things, it would replicate the early reporting regime and early claim resolution processes adopted under the Queensland compulsory third party insurance scheme. Other provisions include limiting economic loss to three times average weekly earnings, limiting legal costs for small claims and exclusion of jury trials.Measures Queensland will be introducing as part of stage 2 will include: prohibiting the recovery of damages where the injured person has engaged in criminal activity at the time of the injury; the proposal that the increase in risk caused by taking recreational drugs, including alcohol, should be taken into account as a factor in negligence and shall not lead to any increase in the duty of care owed by a third party; waivers and self-assumption of risks—subject to suitable safeguards—which would see people waiving their rights to sue before undertaking certain high risk activities; and the protection of volunteers from being sued for gross negligence by way of an indemnity from the organisation for which they work. Other measures to be considered by Queensland include a cap on general damages, changing the statute of limitations but maintaining a level of protection for minors, reviewing the law of negligence, and dispensing with the concept of joint and several liability. So, in those states, quite a deal of work has been done to come up with a cooperative approach to the issue of public liability. The other states are following suit in this matter, which has to be a good thing.This is a very good bill. This bill, in concert with the measures proposed to be introduced by the states, will go some way to restoring some balance in the public liability insurance system—balance which, as my community certainly has expressed to me on numerous occasions, is urgently needed. By making these changes we will be able to maintain the ability of the public and other consumers of tourism and sports products to enjoy those products. Without those changes, as I think most people would agree, the supply of such activities would be severely reduced. This bill should assist the tourism industry—a vital employer in the electorate of Cowper, one that generates a lot of employment, and a vital industry to my electorate. A lot of the activities which have been adversely affected by public liability insurance are very labour intensive; thus we are losing a very important source of employment generation. This bill is good for employment generation, it is very good for business and it is very good for our tourism product. Tourism operators—certainly those in my electorate—have commended the moves by this government in relation to public liability. I know that Kevin Rubie from the Big Banana is a very keen supporter of this bill and the moves that the government is making. I think it is a great step for our tourism industry and I think it is a great step for our community. I commend this bill to the House.12:08:005935Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I would like to thank those honourable members who have participated in this fulsome and very interesting debate. The Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 is an important government initiative which will assist in ensuring available and affordable public liability insurance for the Australian community. As we have heard in the contributions made by members of the House, this is a bill which is much needed.The honourable member for Eden-Monaro asked me to apologise for his inability to participate in the debate, as he is representing in his electorate the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. He did ask that I make mention of the situation in his electorate, where businesses have been severely affected by this issue. In particular, he wants me to draw to the attention of the House the efforts made by the Jindabyne Chamber of Commerce, represented by Nadine McLeod.This bill implements a commitment by the Commonwealth at the ministerial meeting on public liability insurance on 30 May this year. At that meeting the Commonwealth agreed to legislate to allow self-assumption of risk for people who choose to participate in inherently risky activities such as adventure tourism and sports. In some of the contributions to the House we have heard some of these particular areas of activity highlighted.The member for Kingston said that he supported the passage of the bill through the House, but claimed that there were a number of deficiencies. The points he raised were, I think, similar to those raised by his colleagues the honourable members for Hunter and Rankin. He claimed that people are able to waive liability for gross negligence on the part of a service provider. He claimed that this was inappropriate. He also claimed that the definition of recreational services lacked clarity, and mentioned that consumers must be appropriately informed of the effect of signing a waiver. He went on to say that, in addition, the government must ensure that measures such as those contemplated by this bill are effective in reducing premiums.In response to the matters raised by the honourable member, I note that the Trade Practices Act was never intended to provide a substitute for negligence actions where people were killed or suffered serious injuries, except in limited, specific areas dealing with product safety. However, the government is concerned that consumers be appropriately protected. To this end, the government has established an expert panel, chaired by Mr Justice Ipp, to review the law of negligence. Under its terms of reference, the panel has been asked to consider the interaction of the Trade Practices Act, as amended by the bill we are currently debating, with the common law principles applied in negligence. The honourable member will be interested to know that the panel has specifically been asked to evaluate whether there are appropriate consumer protection measures in place under the Trade Practices Act as proposed to be amended and, if necessary, to develop and evaluate proposals for consumer protection consistent with the intent of the amendments contained in this bill. The panel will be reporting on these matters on 30 August. The government will consider the implications of the panel's recommendations on the bill. The government has also asked the ACCC to update its insurance industry marketing pricing review on a six-monthly basis over the course of the next two years. This ongoing monitoring role will enable assessment of whether the insurance industry is adjusting premiums to take account of cost savings and provide a gauge of the effectiveness of measures taken on a national basis to stabilise and contain the cost of claims and its impact on premiums.The member for Paterson mentioned that the increases in public liability insurance premiums have had a significant impact on businesses, and he referred in particular to adventure tourism businesses operating in the Port Stephens area of his electorate. I am very pleased that the member for Paterson welcomes the bill. He joins other members in calling on all governments, state and federal, to progress measures to reduce premiums as soon as possible. The member for Paterson is a very effective local representative. He always speaks out on behalf of his constituency on matters of concern to them. The member's contribution reflects those matters of concern not only to his electorate but to all communities throughout Australia. I am sure that the effects on adventure tourism and small business in Paterson that the member described are similar to those experienced by the constituents of those of us who represent other parts of the nation. Unfortunately, the member for Hunter seems to have a propensity to criticise the member for Paterson at every opportunity. The member for Paterson always speaks out on behalf of his electorate on areas of concern, whether they relate to the poor performance of the Carr Labor government or whether they relate to other areas where he sees the need for action. I think it is a bit of a pity that the member for Hunter chose to play politics in relation to what is really a bipartisan national response to a very grave problem.As always, the member for Mitchell made a very thought provoking contribution. He mentioned bushwalking and the number of injuries which occur as a result of this activity. He also referred to the position of the Girl Guides. I think the member for Rankin referred to these comments in his speech. The member for Mitchell said he was surprised by the paucity of data collected by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and its predecessor, the Insurance and Superannuation Commission. I was surprised at the comments of the member for Mitchell in relation to bushwalking. I confess I enjoy bushwalking myself. I have always considered it to be a relatively mild activity and that the dangers involved are not very great, but the member's comments point to the advantages of having the wide definition of recreational services in the bill. The definition contained in the bill has the benefit of enabling a wide range of activities and organisations to achieve the protections offered by the bill.I also have taken on board the comments made by the member for Mitchell on the paucity of claims data in the area of public liability insurance. This lack of data has contributed to insurers being unable to understand appropriately the risk attaching to particular types of activities, and this has been particularly problematic for community organisations. The member for Mitchell will be pleased to know that the government will move to compel insurance companies to provide claims data to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority for analysis and publication. Consultations on the appropriate methodology for this collection have already commenced.The member for Kennedy expressed some concerns in relation to small claims and the practices of lawyers to promote `no win, no fee' arrangements. He also referred to the potential of capping claims payouts. The honourable member for Kennedy should be aware that state and territory governments have responsibility for the law of tort and for legal and court processes in their jurisdictions. As was mentioned by the member for Cowper, many states have now moved to introduce statutory reforms in some of these areas. I have noted carefully the comments made by the honourable member for Kennedy about the lottery mentality that large-scale awards might have on plaintiffs. The government has introduced legislation to remove the tax disincentives to structured settlements. Structured settlements provide for damages in the form of an income stream to an injured party rather than a lump sum. Structured settlements can result in better matching between the needs of the injured party and the amount of any settlement. The government does not support a New Zealand style, no fault compensation scheme. The honourable member for Kennedy would understand that these types of schemes impose no level of accountability on individuals for their own actions and do not provide any incentives for appropriate risk management by business.The member for Wentworth mentioned that we have moved to a system where our courts have moved from simply providing compensation for loss in circumstances of negligence to a position of strict liability for injury. However, he also said that not only the courts are to blame; legislators also have some responsibility for having moved the position at law too far towards the rights of consumers, without consideration of the flow-through effect on insurance. The member for Wentworth also mentioned that insurers have played their part through the paucity of their processes for dealing with claims. Governments do have a responsibility to ensure that the balance between the rights of consumers and those of business in obtaining affordable insurance is appropriate. As the honourable member noted, this bill goes towards correcting that balance. The government has been particularly keen to ensure that all parties to this problem, including lawyers, governments and insurers, own their part of the problem. The member for Wentworth recognised that in his speech. The member for Rankin noted that the bill applies only to corporations. He ought to be aware that this is because the Trade Practices Act applies only to corporations. However, I point out again that the states are committed to introducing mirror legislation to enable waivers to be effective in other circumstances and that the state and territory laws apply to unincorporated bodies. Since all the state and territory governments now comprise members of the Australian Labor Party, I would encourage the honourable member for Rankin to talk with his colleagues in this particular area. He also mentioned GST and insurance prices. On the issue of taxes, I point out that the GST is designed to have a minimal impact on insurance prices. The GST is specifically designed so that it does not impact on either the costs of general insurers or insured businesses because both of these groups are entitled to claim input tax credits. In addition, the Commonwealth government has legislated to ensure that GST is not levied on the state stamp duty component of insurance premiums. Also, the GST is charged only on the margin of a premium charged by an insurer to the final consumer. The member for Rankin would be aware that all revenue from the goods and services tax is payable to the states and that the primary cause of high taxation levels on insurance is the high stamp duties and fire services levies imposed by Labor state and territory governments. All state and territory governments impose stamp duty on household insurance policies at rates varying from five per cent to 11 per cent. This is charged on the GST inclusive premium—that is, states and territories, quite despicably, impose a tax on a tax.The member for Kingston moved away from the bipartisan nature of this debate and sought to condemn the government for what he termed was our slow response on this issue. The member for Kingston well knows that the government has been anything but tardy in its approach to this problem. The Commonwealth has engaged with all state and territory governments and it has worked with them throughout this year on this very difficult issue, which is essentially a state and territory government issue.If members opposite are truly concerned about the speed of reform in this area, I trust that they will be taking on board the comments of the honourable members for Flinders, Deakin and Corangamite in doing what they can to influence the Victorian state government—which, hopefully, will be defeated at the election, whenever it is held—to get up to speed with the reforms already taken in most other jurisdictions in this country. I often do not agree politically with the member for Calare, but I always listen to his very thought provoking responses and contributions. He referred to what he perceived as certain problems with the bill. He said that a waiver in itself is not enough and that there should also be in place codes of conduct for industries such as horse riding. He also claimed that collectively the nation should look at legal system reforms. I note his comments that the measures contained in this bill should be complemented with appropriate risk management by service providers.The government is supportive of measures taken by sporting organisations and associations to put in place appropriate codes of conduct to ensure appropriate consumer protection and to reduce the cost of insurance for business. The Minister for Small Business and Tourism, for example, has established a horse industry working group to help horse related industries establish an industry code of conduct, risk management regimes and group insurance arrangements. I also note again the member's comments with respect to legal system reforms. He would be aware that reforms to the legal system are matters for the states and territories in Australia.The Trade Practices Act is important legislation which protects consumers from unfair trading practices and which confers rights upon consumers acquiring goods and services. As I have indicated before, the act was never intended to provide a substitute for negligence actions where people were killed or suffered serious injuries, except in relation to those limited specific areas dealing with product safety. The purpose of this bill is to guarantee that the object of the Trade Practices Act is not subverted for an improper purpose. Its passage will complement state and territory initiatives designed to ensure that outcomes in negligence actions reflect community expectations. Like the amendments made to the Trade Practices Act last year, this bill reinforces the philosophy of consumer sovereignty—that is, by providing protection for consumers while promoting the availability of the choice, information and redress necessary for consumers to make their own decisions.The government is committed to ensuring that the Trade Practices Act continues to deliver appropriate protection to consumers, and I referred earlier to the review of the law of negligence chaired by Mr Justice Ipp. The government does recognise the need to strike an appropriate balance between the needs of business and protecting consumers. The Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002 is a significant step towards ensuring that Australia's laws remain relevant to our economic and social environment, so that business and consumers alike will benefit from fair outcomes in the marketplace. I thank the House in anticipation of its support for this very important government initiative.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.5938Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (12.26 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills5938R16095938Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion by Mr Anthony:That this bill be now read a second time.12:27:005938Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—The Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 is the government's second attempt to dramatically change the eligibility criteria and the payment system for people with disabilities in this country. It follows the presentation and subsequent withdrawal of the original bill following this year's budget. What is the difference between this bill—that is, the No. 2—and the original bill? It is a question being asked equally around the country. The answer is: not much, really. In fact, they are virtually identical, except for one important point: the time frame of application. It is that difference which highlights, in my opinion, the sheer arrogance of this government. They seem to think that they can bring in legislation that is virtually the same—legislation that drew strong criticism from around the country, from the disability sector, from people with disabilities, from their families, from their services, from commentators and even from Mr McClure and his colleagues—with a small but very significant change, and expect to see it pass through this parliament.This bill, like its predecessor, aims to change the way people with disabilities are to be judged when applying for the disability support pension. The government wants again to change the work activity test from 30 hours per week to 15 hours per week. If an applicant is assessed as being able to work 15 hours per week, they would be placed on Newstart, immediately lose the potential of an additional $52 per fortnight that the DSP includes, as well as the other support benefits attached to the DSP, and be expected to compete with non-disabled job seekers out there in the competitive job market. Fifty-two dollars a week less income is 12 per cent less. It seems that the government has decided to forget that it costs money when you have a disability, and it is not as easy to get out there into the work force without support as the government would like to think.What this is all about is one thing: saving money. The proof of that was the attempt at financial blackmail exercised by the minister during the debate on the previous bill. The message to us from the minister at the time was very clear: pass this bill—in other words, give us the savings—or we will not put additional money into the Commonwealth-state disability agreement. What a great illustration that is of orderly financial policy for services to people with disability! This government is not about proper, honest incentives and support for those with disability who need and want encouragement and assistance to get back into the work force. The government is failing to meet the true level of assistance, training, rehabilitation and support needed by these people to successfully move into the work force. The government is making the assumption that people with disability in receipt of the DSP or making a claim in the future will only attempt to go off the DSP and into the work force if you take a big stick to them and force them to do so with punitive rules and attitude. Nothing could be further from the truth. My experience in meeting and talking with many people in the disability sector around this country is quite the reverse; they want to involve themselves in their communities, they want to work and they want to participate. However, they find it extremely difficult to do those things if adequate training and support, both short- and long-term, are not readily available. During the debate on the original bill, the member for Lilley referred to some statistics vital, I believe, to an understanding of the situation facing people with disability who are attempting to enter or re-enter the work force. I would like to refer to the comments made by the member for Lilley where he outlined those statistics very clearly. He said:In 1998-99, the last time a count was taken, just 10,855 people left the disability support pension for the work force. Ten thousand people out of 650,000 moving into work is a deplorably low number of transitions that are driven by the absence of assistance to make the transition. ... The supported wage system allowed people with disabilities access to the open labour market at a pay level commensurate with their ability and productivity. But in the financial year 2000-01, just 986 placements occurred, which assisted just 0.15 per cent of the disability support pension population. Look at the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, an organisation set up to assist people to make the transition back to work. In the 12 months to 30 June last year, the organisation had provided rehabilitation to just 18,112 clients. It achieved durable employment outcomes for just 6,730 people. The member for Lilley went on to say:The capacity of our specialist disability employment services—services funded to provide the tailored support that people need to enter open employment—are also severely limited when set against the 650,000 people on the disability pension. As at June 2000, some 46,000 people were on the books of these services, about 30,000 were being supported in work and about14,000 were being assisted to look for work. The scheme is assisting just over seven per cent of the disability support pension population.Not surprisingly, many people throughout the community who are alarmed at what changes would mean for them or their family member have contacted me over recent months. I would like to share with the House some experiences that have come to us first-hand from people in the community who have concerns and who have legitimate points of view to put forward when considering these changes. I would like to cite the case of Karen, a young person with a profound but hardly visible disability which gives her bad and good days. She works part time as an advocate for young people with a disability. She studies part time—disability services, ironically—and she participates on the board of a disability arts group. She works around 30 hours per week in good weeks; when she is ill, she cannot work at all for days. Sometimes there are months between attacks, and sometimes they happen every few weeks. The disability support pension has allowed Karen to study without much pressure, as she also received a pensioner education supplement which covered the cost of her books. Public transport was a problem at times, but she managed to keep up with her activities. Recently, Karen had to go back onto the pension, as she had worked for a few weeks on a special project and had earned too much during that time. As she had worked 30.5 hours during those few weeks, she was deemed to be able to work more than 30 hours a week and her part-time study load was not enough to put her onto Austudy. On the Newstart allowance, Karen immediately lost $52 a fortnight, plus her pensioner education supplement, plus her concessions for a variety of services, such as cheaper electricity and phone bills, access to entertainment at concession prices and so on. Worse, though, she soon received a letter asking her to sign an activity agreement. According to the agreement, she had to look for 10 jobs per fortnight. After four weeks, this was eased to five employer certificates per fortnight. Employers have to sign a statement saying that the job seeker has actually applied for a job, decently dressed and with adequate manners and behaviour. After that, she was left to find three jobs a fortnight.Not only was this a depressing and futile exercise, as Karen was still very keen to progress her studies and was just waiting for the beginning of the next semester to increase her study load, but it also had devastating effects on her. A young, optimistic and enthusiastic woman turned into an anxious nervous wreck. She lost self-esteem, and she became very depressed. The first breach came when she missed her quarterly appointment because she had a bad day and overslept her appointment. Her apology was not accepted, so she took the 18 per cent cut of her Newstart allowance over six months. Whilst such a case can apply to people who are currently on DSP, there will be many Karens who, after July of next year, will have the new rules imposed upon them. It is fair for us to say that Karen epitomises what will be faced by so many people if this bill gets through this parliament and these new rules are applied to people applying for DSP in the future.I also want to talk briefly about the National Association of People Living with HIV-AIDS. In relation to the proposed changes they say:The new requirement that people must be unable to work 15 hours a week before being able to access DSP shows a misunderstanding of the nature of many chronic illnesses, such as HIV/AIDS in this case. The government thinks this move will encourage people with disabilities to consider the possibility of part-time work when for chronic illnesses such as HIV/AIDS the reverse is more likely to be the case. Moreover, people may be unlikely to take up opportunities for part-time work because they will fear being assessed as ineligible for DSP support. Many people with HIV/AIDS are currently unable to work full-time jobs because their energy levels and the treatment side effects and toxicities do not allow them to do so.Another person sent me an email saying:So many things cost me more than persons with full mobility. Special shoes, electricity for my scooter, batteries, mobility aids, taxis, cleaner, handyman, help. Some of us try to manage without the demand on services like PADP and Home Care but if we have to pull in our belts ... ?And there is a question mark at the end of the sentence. I have another example—these are all very important because they are real people—of a young man who, I believe, received an employee of the year award. He had two lung transplants at that time and could not attend the ceremony. He is working 20 hours in a physco-therapeutic clinic as a receptionist at award rates, but he receives a lot of support. The staff in the clinic had all decided to each work one half-day less in order to employ him. If this re-assessment were applied to him now because he is working 20 hours—but he will not be re-assessed because he is now going to be `grandfathered'; I think that is the strange term that the government is using to isolate the people who are currently on DSP—he would have been thrown out onto Newstart. If there is a case similar to his—and there will be in the future—then that new person is going to have great difficulties in getting the sort of support that this young man has had.I want to talk briefly about people who are on the DSP and who, of their own accord, leave the DSP on entering the work force—and many do this. Should their circumstances change after two years, I assume the new work activity test will be applied to them. It must be acknowledged that many people with a disability do have associated health issues and it is very difficult for some to maintain a level of activity. Under the current rules they could have applied for and be receiving the DSP. They could leave the disability support pension quite confidently—and I know of many cases where this has happened—and then find that because of health issues it is too difficult to continue working in the way that they have been. They will need to consider re-applying for the DSP. I take it that, in the brave new world of Minister Vanstone, they will have to apply to get back into that support mechanism by way of a new work activity test and other tests.I have, for many months, been concentrating on the disability sector and have had the privilege of meeting, speaking and listening to an enormous number of people who are out there doing their darndest, despite their disability, to contribute to and become part of their community. So many people are doing such wonderful things, but in many cases they are, to use a colloquial term, `pushing up a very steep hill'. They do not need someone holding a sledgehammer over their head threatening financial punitive reaction if they do not do the right thing; they need encouragement, support and mentoring. They need the whole thing to turn around so that people can see that when they wish to make this transition they are going to do it with encouragement, support and training—all the things that we expect in our working lives. As I said a moment ago, the number of people currently being supported through the training support schemes is inferior. In the new bill the minister is reiterating her promise that there will be 70,000-odd training places. That is not enough. Not only is it not enough; they are not going to be adequately resourced. I am sure and confident of that. Until we see proof of that, I stand by my statement until corrected. The question is: does the government really believe that this new bill, which will apply only to future applicants for the disability support pension, is fairer than the previous bill? It is a fundamental question. I have thought about it and tried to come to some fair conclusion to that question—and I cannot; the bills are the same. The minister has listened to all the objections of people around the country. They stood up and said, `You cannot do this for all of these good reasons.' Minister Anthony, in his second reading speech on this current bill, said:Recent events have shown that introducing change in this area is not easy. But we cannot shy away from this ... He went on to say:Notwithstanding this need for change, we have heard the concerns of the community about the likely impact of the changes we announced on people who are currently receiving DSP. We identified particular groups, such as those on DSP who are already working to the best of their ability, for special consideration.I still have a great deal of difficulty in understanding this. It has been illustrated to us very clearly that it is very hard to bring about change. It is if the change is unfair and adds nothing good or useful to people on disability support. In that case it is hard to bring in—and so it ought to be. The bill that we have seen withdrawn because of the level of opposition is an illustration of that. Good policy and good legislation will not receive the sort of reaction that the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill 2002 has received. I have no hesitation in predicting that the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 will receive the same reaction as the original bill. We do not object to the timeline; we object to the fundamental changes that are implied within the bill. If the minister had been sincere about this, had heard the objections and the reasoning and listened very carefully to the comments from the individuals and services within the disability sector, this bill would not have been introduced. We would have seen an attempt at welfare reform in the disability sector that far more closely mirrors and reflects the recommendations of the McClure report.This does not do that. This does not in any way suggest that Minister Vanstone and her government are sincere about good, proper policy in welfare reform. What it does show is that they have not changed their minds at all about attempting to achieve some savings. I hate to say that, because it sounds like a cheap go, but it is the truth. The cave-in has occurred, because I understand there is now an offer on the table in relation to the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement. It is an offer that is pretty inferior to what it ought to be, but it is there, despite the fact that the original bill did not proceed through the parliament. The hollow rhetoric that was hanging around over that blackmail threat, holding people with disabilities to hostage while they negotiated with state and territory ministers for disability over the future of funding, is pretty poor behaviour, in my opinion, on the part of the Commonwealth minister. Anyway, that is what she decided to do. She lost that round, and, with the greatest of respect to her, I predict and hope that she will lose this one, because this one is no better. The only thing that is not hanging off it is some form of blackmail, and that is not really a great thing to give it credit.This bill will mean that people who are currently on the disability support pension will remain so after the changes mid-next year, and it will mean that people who, through their circumstances, need to apply for the disability support pension after that date will have to apply under the minister's brave new world of rules. I referred a moment ago to the story of Karen, the young woman who ended up having to go onto Newstart and then back onto disability again because of the terrible impost that it put on her to get out and attempt to compete in the open employment market, despite chronic disability. Chronic illness is just as important, because when we talk about disability some people have a habit, understandably, of expecting someone to come in in a wheelchair or such. In fact, it can take many forms and shapes and can also reflect chronic illness.What this bill really means is that, after July next year, if you are an applicant for the disability support pension, you will have to go in under these new rules. If you fail and you are deemed by whoever—the judge of this; I am not sure if we know yet who that will be—to be fit to do more than 15 hours of work a week, that is the end of your DSP aspirations. You then get out into the Newstart. Apparently there are some programs that are going to be put in place to offer some training and so on, but we need to see proof of the intent in that. We need to see the money, we need to see the programs, we need to know that it is going to be a fulsome and proper process of training—not like the ones we have seen in the past few short years. After July next year, if two people work side by side in the same workplace and they have the same disability and the same level of ability, but one is a new person and the other is an older DSP recipient, they will be categorised completely differently. One of them will be categorised pre-July and the other one post-July next year. One of them will be getting $52 a fortnight more than the other and will have a different set of circumstances placed upon them. I cannot believe the logic in this, I cannot see the sense in it, and I cannot see the fairness or the equity in it at all. Confusion, unfairness and inequity all apply, and yet the minister, who has caved in to the objections to her initial proposal, sees this as somehow fair and reasonable. In my opinion, and in the opinion of my colleagues, nothing could be less fair and less reasonable. The government have had plenty of opportunities. I understand that there has been consultation all around the countryside post the rejection of the first bill. There has been a lot of discussion. I think that reflects even more the level of absolute disappointment that the second bill is all that they could come up with—after all of that. After all the evidence and after all of the inequities that were pointed out—and after the minister acknowledging them and saying, `Yes, it is pretty hard, but we are going to hang in there and do this despite that'—I suggest that the government should pack this bill into their kitbag and take it home. They should have a thorough acknowledgment of where they are with reform in the welfare sector generally and reform in the welfare sector specifically in the area of disability services. As we know, the debate and the negotiations over the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement are ongoing. That has been extended by four months, if I recall correctly, which takes us to the end of October. So the clock is beginning to tick towards midnight in relation to the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement. There seems to be a reluctance by the minister to move very much on that. I am not quite sure where that will end up, but it is all tied in with this. It is all part of the same argument. It is all part of the same debate. This is not a Third World country. If we cannot work with and care for our population who happen to have a disability or a chronic illness, what can we do? Instead of penalising them we should get out there and work with them. The minister does not have to go far to get out of her office, here or in Adelaide, and see very clearly some wonderful examples of people with, in some cases, very severe disabilities and high need levels. Yet these people are determined to do their best. The government seem to assume that if a person is on the disability support pension—or wishes to be, in the case of this bill—the only way we can move them off it is to somehow approach them in a threatening fashion. That is so wrong. It is just wrong. It is incorrect. It is quite silly. The majority of those people would do anything to either not have their disability and to work or to get out there and participate anyway. The other point is that, in the case of some people with disabilities, community participation is almost as valuable to them, and to us, as employment participation. There are many ways that these people can and want to contribute. But it is no good if we continue to hear stories like one case I can recall—without going into detail—about a young woman with a pretty severe physical disability who was attempting to maintain employment. Without proper care to help her, it was becoming more and more difficult for her. She found the job; it was a full-time job and she was having a wonderful time doing it; it was the making of her. But she needed some assistance to maintain that job eight hours a day, five days a week. I believe she is still doing it, but the toll is huge. If the government really want to be sincere and serious about this, they need to rethink their approach. They need to move out of their rhetoric, out of their legislation and out of their talk that people on the disability support pension or people with a disability need coercion. They do not need coercion; they need assistance. They need short- and long-term ongoing support. Do not just support them into a job; support them in the job as well. They need training. The employers also need assistance, training and understanding on how they can begin to be more proactive than they are.It is fair to say that the range of employers around this country who are employing people with a disability is growing all the time. I had the pleasure two nights ago of attending the Prime Minister's awards dinner here in Parliament House, where many of those people were acknowledged. We need to do more of that. We need to ensure that, if employers wish to get into the field of employing people with a disability, we help them to do it as well.In conclusion, I reiterate that the minister has disappointed us incredibly—but almost predictably—by bringing back a package of legislation that is similar to the first one, except for its time line of application. Its time line of application is not our problem. Our problem is what the government intends to do when it applies the rules for DSP, not when it is going to do it. I think the government may have missed, very slightly, the main point here. I encourage the minister and government members to carefully rethink their approach and to look forward to ongoing opposition to this particular piece of legislation.12:54:005944Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—It is my great pleasure to speak in support of the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002. I have listened very carefully to what the member for Canberra had to say; in fact, after going through the debate on the previous bill, I have also looked very closely at what has been said on behalf of the opposition in relation to all these issues. The thing that I think is missing from the entire case being put forward by the opposition is any kind of coherent argument as to what should happen as an alternative.The opposition have a long track record of recognising this problem. They recognise that there is a problem with the disability support pension, but they have no idea at all what to do about it. That lack of a central train of thought means they are thrashing about all over the place about what should be done to address it. They have contradicted themselves at practically every turn. The concerns about the disability support pension and the moves to address them were highlighted in the McClure report, which was delivered in August 2000. The report recommended a review of the disability support pension.There has been a huge blow-out in the number of people claiming the disability support pension, from around 250,000 in 1991 to over 650,000 now. With respect to the opposition's lack of coherent policy on this matter, it should be noted that, in the last three years of the Labor government, the number of people on the disability support pension increased by 22.8 per cent. So the problem has been there for a long time. When the opposition were in government, they did nothing to address this problem, and now they have no idea about how the government should address it. I am glad to say that, on the other side of the coin, the government has a clear idea about what needs to be done about it.The disability support pension is designed to provide support based on a person's disability. There is a table of disabilities, and people are assessed against that table. To receive the disability support pension, they must have a disability of 20 per cent and, as a result of that disability, be unable to work 30 hours a week. Those are fairly broad sorts of rules. Thirty hours a week might have seemed like a short time frame back in 1991, but these days there are full-time jobs that are only 35 hours a week. I cannot see how you can differentiate between 30 hours and 35 hours and then say that this represents a level of disability that should be in a special category. The difference of five hours is not all that much. That clearly highlights one of the basic problems with the disability support pension, in that the way that it has been structured it does cast a fairly wide net. The member for Canberra spoke about a lady named Karen who, frankly, sounds like a very capable person. Although this person may have difficulties, I would not consider promoting the concept of a person's disability when they are obviously so capable of getting their point across. I think you would want to demonstrate and support their capability rather than their disability. We have a system where 30 hours is the benchmark. This is a pretty low benchmark. It is not setting the bar anywhere near where it should be. The opportunity for people to go out and work is a fundamental right. It is something that everybody wants to be able to do. To pick a figure of 30 hours is really selling it short.Above all, we have to find the money to support people such as Karen and the many people I know in my electorate who face great challenges through having very heavy disabilities to work with and work around. Those people need to be given support. The wider we cast the net and the more people we allow through the door for that sort of service, the less capacity we have to be able to provide the support. Quite clearly, not everyone receiving a disability pension is disabled. Quite clearly, lots of people are receiving a disability pension in Australia today under false pretences. Members opposite have said that there are people rorting the system. Certainly the member for Werriwa and the member for Lilley have said that there are people out there rorting the system. I challenge anyone to accept that there are not people rorting the system and that we should not be setting a higher standard of disability in order to be able to identify where the bar should be set. 83NHall, Jill, MP84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—It is a lot more difficult to prove an inability to work 15 hours a week than it is to prove an inability to work 30 hours a week, and that is fundamentally what we have to look at. Earlier I spoke about the contradictory statements that have been made by members opposite. The member for Shortland is one who has made contradictory statements—she has made some beauties. And the member for Lilley has been in on it as well. A little while back the member for Shortland and the member for Lilley were trying to infer that the government was trying to shift people onto disability support pensions.83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall—Not at all.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—You were. You were trying to infer that we were shifting people onto disability support pensions so that they would not appear as unemployed. Isn't it absolutely contradictory that they should be inferring that the government is herding them onto the disability support pension and then that they are there under false pretences? That was what the member for Shortland was implying in August 1999 when she put this question here in the House:Could it be that the government is hiding the long-term unemployed by paying them the disability support pension?Back then she was trying to imply that there are people on the disability support pension on an improper basis. I will be very interested to hear what she has to say about that now, because that is what she was saying then. And the member for Lilley was openly asking the Minister for Community Services:Will you now admit that your real agenda is to make the unemployment rate look lower than it is by shifting people onto the disability support pension ...That was their smear; that was their claim— and it is totally false. At that time the member for Bendigo was asking whether there would be help to get people off the disability pension and into their own businesses. Hear, hear! It just shows you how they are thrashing about. At the same time as the member for Shortland and the member for Lilley are sitting there trying to imply that the government is actually trying to force people onto the disability support pension on some kind of a false basis, someone like the member for Bendigo—from the same party—is jumping up and down and saying, `Let's put them into their own businesses; let's fund them to get into their own businesses and off the disability support pension.' It is so hypocritical and so contradictory it is absurd.We had the member for Werriwa point out that among the advanced economies in the world Australia has the lowest rate of labour force participation for men over 55. I think it was he who pointed out that amongst those aged between 60 and 64 a quarter are on the disability support pension. The member for Canberra said that Australia is not a Third World country, so why should we have these Third World rates of disability? This is talking about people who are in their 50s and people who are aged 60 to 64. There is something very wrong in the way that is occurring. No other country in the world has our level of disability.This government is setting out to address that by saying that people who are able to work 15 hours a week can go out and get a job. I certainly endorse that. I think many of those people would relish the opportunity to go out and get a job. Unfortunately, other people are on the disability support pension not because they are disabled but because they are rorting the system. Setting a level of 15 hours a week will make it far less attractive for those people to want to try to defraud the system. We are talking about coming down to the core client group that we are trying to serve, the people who are really disabled. Should we not give them better levels of support rather than constantly fragmenting our levels of support so that we get freeloaders getting onto the wagon as well? That seems to be the position of the ALP: `Let's have more freeloaders on the disability support pension and let us not do anything about it.' That is quite contrary to the position that was put earlier by the member for Shortland, so it will be interesting to see whether she will recant in light of their new-age thinking over there. I think it was the member for Werriwa who really belled the cat when he said that there should not be 650,000 people on the disability support pension but that there should be 150,000 on it. He said that half a million Australians should not be on the disability support pension. What are his grounds for saying that? Here is a Labor member again thrashing about with weird theories as to what we might do but having no clear sense of direction. Those opposite embody it by proceeding in that way. Of those half a million people, some must be rorters and some—I presume he has a reason for saying—must have some other reason why they should not be on the disability support pension. What does he propose as a method of supporting those people? I do not believe he has any idea. I do not believe that members opposite have any idea, either.It all comes down to how much we are able to provide. In 1991 it was costing us $2.8 billion to provide a disability support pension and now it is costing $6.9 billion. That money—$6.9 billion—will go a hell of a lot further and will provide much better support and a better standard of living for people who are severely disabled when it is focused on those people who are severely disabled. We need to take out the rorters—a component which should never have been there—and, at the same time, identify those people who are really capable of working a part-time job.I will just diverge a moment to think about part-time work. Part-time work is now a fact of life for many Australians. It is the growing thing. People do have many different types of part-time employment. They pursue it, and it is a good way of life if that is what you want. It is forming the income of many families today. We are not in a situation where, unless you have a 40-hour-a-week job, you do not have a job; we are now in a situation where people can plug in their computer and work from home. A person with a bad back can do that just as effectively as an able-bodied person. The opportunities for that kind of work are out there, so part-time work should come into the equation. We should not be setting a benchmark of 30 hours; we should be setting a benchmark of 15.It is far more appropriate to be looking at what people can do rather than running around, beating them over the head and telling them what they cannot do. This is something that empowers people. We have seen it with Work for the Dole. We have heard the minister responsible for the Work for the Dole program reading out the endorsement from people who have been through that program about how they have been empowered by getting involved in the Work for the Dole program. I believe it is exactly the same with people who are currently being told today, `No, you're disabled; you're on the scrap heap; you're out of there.' That is the policy of the Labor Party: `You're out of there.' The fact is that they are not. If they are capable of working 15 hours a day and they want to get out there and do it, we should be cheering them on, not trying to hold them back.It is estimated that currently something like 10,000 people on the disability support pension work between 15 and 30 hours, and they do that at an award rate. There are many quite able-bodied people who are not on the DSP who are working those sorts of hours and who find that a very important supplement to their family income. Indeed, it can be the complete source of their family income. Because of the way the employment market has moved, I do not think that because a person currently has an entitlement to a disability support pension we should close our eyes to the fact that such a person really should be part of the wider community. We should be encouraging more employers to take on disabled people. If we keep on bottling these people up and telling everyone out there that they are on the scrap heap, there is less likelihood that they are going to get offers of work. If we let it be known that they are very good workers and they want to work and they have these capabilities, we will find employers who will take them on.There is another very interesting side to the equation, and that is the proportion of males and females receiving the disability support pension. It is just incredible to me that the proportion of males taking up this pension is 62 per cent. I do not think there is an innate disposition towards disability that means that men will be more disabled than women—I do not know; perhaps there are some statistics to that effect. But this is the disability support pension that produces this figure, and I think there are some other very dodgy reasons why it comes up that way. That is another reason why we need reform in this area. Members opposite have admitted that we need to reform it. But, now it comes down to it, they just take the cheap political shot rather than looking at the best position for Australia. The disabled people in our community do not deserve to have their dollars being spread over too wide a net when there is so much that people who are on the very fringe of that situation can do to earn a very good income. Then there is also the other group of people who the member for Werriwa quite rightly said are rorters. The basic core of this argument is that we need to give the money to the people who need it. We really need to focus on who needs a disability pension and who needs the opportunity to get out into the community and to take on work. I think it is quite significant that, under this new bill, no-one will be affected until 1 July 2003. I think that should certainly ease the squeamishness of members opposite. There is not one person who will not be forewarned about this and who cannot think and structure their daily life around the way they see this legislation. There is plenty of forewarning as to how it is going to happen. I think that the minister has been more than just a little accommodating in terms of adjusting the legislation. The previous speaker, the member for Canberra, said that it was not the time line that members opposite objected to, that it was the fundamental changes. Members opposite have yet to propose a single cohesive plan of their own that would go to the fundamental flaws that are within our existing disability support pension arrangements. Until they do that, they remain exposed as being a group of very shoddy hypocrites with a record of misrepresenting the issue. 13:14:005947Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The previous speaker said he will listen with enthusiasm to what I have to say, and one thing I can promise him is that he will learn something about disability and about people with disability finding employment. For the information of the member for Blair, I have spent 13 years working with people with disabilities. I have knocked on employers' doors time and again looking for work for people with disabilities. The things I came up against time and again were the types of negative stereotypes portrayed by the member for Blair, a member who obviously has absolutely no understanding of the issues in this matter.The member for Blair talked about the fact that there are many more males than females in receipt of disability support pension. I would like to refer the honourable member to the occupational health and safety records of various industries and occupations, because I can assure him that that is where he will very quickly find the answer to his question. We all come from different backgrounds and we all have different knowledge bases, so I think the member for Blair should take the time to research things in more detail and understand an issue before he makes the outrageous types of statements he has just made.He quoted members on this side of the House, but the only contribution he made to this debate was to say that people with disabilities in receipt of disability support pensions are rorters. I find it absolutely disgraceful that a member of this House can call people with disabilities rorters. These are people who look to government to help them, look to government for security and look to government to facilitate their return to work. This is not about cost cutting; it is not about any of those things. It is about ensuring that people with disabilities have equal opportunity. It is about ensuring that, if a person cannot work, they will have a proper support base. Part of this government's problem is that all its programs in this area have failed, and when their programs fail they stereotype people with disabilities. It is `blame the victim'. If you have a disability it is your fault; you must be a rorter. There must be something wrong with you so, therefore, it is back to you.The member for Blair suggested that an ideal occupation for people with bad backs would be to sit at a computer all day. That shows how little knowledge he has. Anyone who knows the impact of a back injury knows that you cannot sit for long periods of time. You need to be involved in an occupation that varies between sitting, standing, walking and changing from one task to another. Suggesting that working at a computer is an ideal occupation for these people once again shows that the member for Blair has absolutely no understanding of this matter, absolutely no understanding of disability and is prepared to stereotype people with disabilities. It is just not good enough.I think that really reflects the thinking of the members on the other side of this House. They are prepared to call people with disabilities who are in receipt of disability support pensions rorters, but what do they do about their friends in big business who are out there taking money from ordinary, average Australians every day? What are they doing for the victims of the HIH collapse? What are they doing in that area? Nothing. That is okay but, if you have a disability and you receive a disability support pension, you must be a rorter. This is not good enough.The Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 is, in essence, the same as the failed legislation this government introduced in May this year. It is equally poorly conceived and maybe it is even worse, as it creates two classes of people who will be in receipt of the disability support pension: those who received it before 1 July and those who received it afterwards. We still have the work test of 15 to 30 hours, increasing to 30 hours. I note—once again, from a contribution from the member for Blair—that 10,000 people on the disability support pension fall into the category of working 30 hours. To me, this sounds like a cost cutting exercise, and I will talk a little bit more later about cost cutting and the motivation behind this government's move to change the criteria for receiving the disability support pension.I find the changes to the labour market criteria particularly worrying. Currently, the situation for people 55 years and over is that they look at the local labour market and, if there is a shortage of jobs in an area where there is a high level of unemployment, some flexibility is given. That will be out the door with this legislation. For a person who lives in the Hunter Valley or the Central Coast—the area I come from—that can mean that, if it is deemed that a person with a particular injury could work as a lift driver, the fact that there are no jobs for lift drivers in our area will not be taken into account.That will ensure that people who previously could be given a little bit of flexibility because they were over 55, there were no jobs they were suitably qualified for and no jobs they could physically perform, but maybe there was a job they could perform somewhere in the world, will now be forced off the disability support pension. This is mean-spirited legislation by one of the meanest spirited governments in Australia's history. I find it very, very sad. The aim of this legislation is not to create opportunities for people with disabilities, because if it was about creating opportunities for people with disabilities this government would be spending more money in this area.As I mentioned earlier, I have a long history of working with people with disabilities and specifically in the area of helping them to find work. I was involved in a back care education program. I have heard a lot of comments from this government that those people with back injuries are rorters. They are the targets to some extent of this legislation. The minister has said that people with so-called back injuries should be separated out from those with genuine disabilities. I put it to this government that there is no more genuine or debilitating injury than a back injury. It is one where, if you look at the implications that it has for a person with a disability and the way this legislation will affect them, you can see how negative it will be for that person. A person with a back injury can get up one day, go to work and do a lot of things, but the next day they may not be able to. All it takes is to lift something the wrong way, to bend, twist or move inappropriately and that person can find that they are confined to their bed for maybe a week or incapacitated for even longer than that. This government would call a person with a back injury a rorter. I would call them a person that needs special assistance to find work, a person that needs to have their workplace analysed, a person that needs to have proper equipment and a job that is designed to ensure that they can work in that environment. I call this person somebody that needs the assistance of government, somebody that needs special programs and somebody that needs a government to go and talk to employers and say, `These people are not rorters. These people are prospective employees. They may have to work a little differently to other people, but we believe that you should give them a go. We believe they should have a chance.' To encourage employers to do that the government should have in place labour market programs and be prepared to spend money to support these people moving from disability support pensions into the work force. This government will penalise them if it moves them from the disability support pension to Newstart. If a person is denied the disability support pension it is very difficult to have them immediately placed on the Newstart incapacitated allowance and it is very difficult to access special programs that people with disabilities need to get into the work force. The one organisation that I find can assist people is CRS Australia, but it has limited resources—and I will talk a little more about that in a moment. When this government came to office there were disability review panels—and I actually sat on those panels. Those panels looked at people that were in receipt of sickness benefit and disability support pension and offered them the opportunity to re-enter the work force. They provided them with support and they provided them with the proper programs. There were three organisations that worked together: the CES, Centrelink or the Department of Social Security as it was called, and the Commonwealth Rehab Service or CRS Australia. Sometimes TAFE was involved as well, and Skillshare. These days, it is my understanding that there is liaison between Centrelink and the Commonwealth Rehab Service. I would like to pay credit to, and recognise the fine work that is done by, Centrelink disability support officers and the Commonwealth Rehab Service.Unfortunately, they do not have that same relationship with the Job Network providers and they do not have the same access to the jobs that they had when they were dealing with the CES. The Job Network providers compete against each other and it is all about them making a profit. So you do not have the same partnership between all those people that are involved in getting people with disabilities back into the work force. I think that is very sad because you need that strong partnership, you need strong labour market programs, you need a government that is there to support people with disabilities and not stereotype them.I think it is a very sad situation when we are looking at assisting people with disabilities to get back into the work force by cutting off their disability support pension. This creates insecurity for a person at a time when they need security, when they need to feel that, if they are prepared to take that risk to try to re-enter the work force, if they fail they are not going to be penalised. If they work 30 hours they are not going to be penalised. They need to feel that they have a government that is there to support them, that is moving them from one program to another program with the desire to actually help them. I do not think that that is the purpose behind this legislation. I do not think that that is the government's philosophy. I think, and it really makes me sad to say this, that this government does believe that people that are on disability support pension, unless they are in a wheelchair or so incapacitated that they cannot perform normal daily duties, are all rorters. I think that they believe that they do not need special assistance. That is not true. They actually need more assistance and if the government develops the right kind of programs, the right kind of philosophy, and is prepared to support people it will have a much better chance of actually moving them from being reliant on disability support pension to taking up opportunities to lead a full life.It is not about saying people with disabilities are second class people. It is actually about empowering them by giving them real choice. That is something this legislation does not do; it does not give them real choice. It is about cost cutting. This legislation is no different from the legislation that this government introduced on the first occasion. I am really disappointed that in this parliament we are not prepared to support the people in our community that need the most support. We are not prepared to offer them empowerment and new opportunities. Rather, we are here to stigmatise them and treat them as second-class citizens.13:31:005950Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in opposition to this Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002. In speaking in opposition to it, I note that the purpose laid out in the Bills Digest for this second bill talks about it making changes to the initial bill which was introduced by the government earlier this year after the May budget was brought down. We utterly opposed those draconian reforms then and we oppose them once again. Nothing has changed in relation to the essence of what is in the disability reform legislation. In the purpose laid out in the Bills Digest, it states: This second Bill proposes virtually the same amendments to the DSP provisions ... It is still proposed to reduce the qualification hours under the inability to work test from 30 hours to 15 hours a week. There are some qualifications and some transitional arrangements in there, but basically it is the same legislation. This bill proposes that a person who at the moment would be eligible to apply for and receive a disability support pension because they can only work up to 30 hours a week will now find themselves rejected if they apply for the same pension but can work 15½ hours or 16 hours a week. They will find themselves applying for and maybe receiving a Newstart allowance although they may be living next door to, or even be in the same family as, somebody who is already on the disability support pension and is receiving $50 more a fortnight. They will be able to see that, because of the pension card, a neighbour on the disability support pension receives a concession on their rates, their water and their telephone. So a person who happens to apply for the disability support pension after 1 July 2003 will find themselves on a different kind of government payment, a different kind of government support and in different circumstances with different arrangements than the person next door. I referred to the purpose of the legislation, and it states:In short, existing DSP recipients will be `saved'.That conjures up in my mind the picture of the Minister for Family and Community Services, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister on their white horses coming to save the most vulnerable people in our society, those with disabilities who require financial support from the government to be able to live day to day—not likely, I think. If anybody is likely to save these people, it is the Labor Party. This bill gives effect to the government's budget measures to alter the eligibility requirements for a person to receive disability support pension. As I indicated, it proposes to `save' all existing disabilities support pensioners from these new rules. `Saving' is highly unlikely from this conservative government.The bill has three schedules. The first schedule proposes to amend the current work test for people applying for disability support pension. We will see somebody who can work between 15 and 30 hours a week not being on the DSP if they apply later than July next near, and somebody who is currently on the disability support pension who is able to work between 15 and 30 hours a week being able to access that pension and all the other benefits which go with it. That schedule also contains new transitional provisions which protect claims for disability support pension lodged prior to 1 July 2003. As we said, that was an arbitrary date and one which was forced on the government by the community outrage at this particular decision. Schedules 2 and 3 make changes to the actual Newstart arrangements to allow people with disabilities to at least access some form of government support when they cannot get a job.It is timely for us to recognise that the whole regime of the age pension and what used to be called the invalid pension was brought about by Labor. The Andrew Fisher Labor government of the early 1900s was the government that was instrumental in introducing the age pension and the invalid pension for Australians who were eligible. I am pleased to follow the member for Shortland in this debate, because she and I come from similar backgrounds. We actually worked in the area of supporting people to find work, supporting people who found themselves in circumstances where they were unable to support themselves. Whereas I think the member for Shortland came from the disability area on those disability panels that she was talking about, I sat on those panels on the CES side. In this debate, the Minister for Family and Community Services was quoted as saying: We must recognise that we can no longer say to someone who is so severely disabled that they need to be institutionalised and need regular support that we will give them the same as we give someone with a bad back who can work 25 hours a week.That is obviously coming from the conservative side of politics; only the Liberals would say that. In 1991, Labor said, `If you have a disability and you have the capacity to do some work, we will provide you with the whole framework to support you in that.' Labor was not just saying, `You must undergo an activity test and every week you have to apply for so many jobs, or we will cut your income support.' Labor put into place a whole range of support mechanisms to help these people to get into work. One of these was the disability panels that were referred to before which had somebody from Social Security, somebody from rehab and somebody from the CES. Employers were able to obtain subsidies to help people with disabilities into work. There were programs which provided for retraining of people with disabilities so that they might be able to be retrained in another particular industry or another particular type of work. There was a whole range of programs in place, and they were further complemented by the programs which Prime Minister Keating introduced as part of the Working Nation program.These programs were the ones that we saw scrapped on the election of the Howard government in 1996. A purely ideological decision, they were just scrapped. `These are Labor programs'—they were working, they were supporting the most vulnerable people in our community—`so let's scrap them.' That is what they did, and this is just taking it one step further. The government are not providing any other support for these people. They got rid of what was there, which could have helped. This kind of issue needs a whole approach, and this is not providing it.We have heard debate about the number of people on disability support pension and how that number has been growing. That is undeniable; they have. But let us look at where they are growing. From 1991 to 1996, with a Labor government, disability support panels, a disability reform package and Working Nation programs to help people get into work, the increase was about 36 per cent. In 1996, a Liberal government was elected and it scrapped Working Nation programs and privatised employment services. What is the increase between then and now of people on the disability support pension? It is 44 per cent. That is an indication that the direction of this government has only hindered the prospects of these people trying to get into work. As we have said, Labor is opposing this bill. We said we would oppose the initial budget measures because they are unfair, they are wrong and they do nothing to address the issue of people who may have a capacity to work and want to work being able to get into the work force. You would be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, as many people in here are, that when this debate was happening in the community, 200 people with disabilities and their families came to Canberra to rally here, to let the minister and the government know of their dissatisfaction with the proposed changes. It was quite powerful to have 200 people with severe disabilities come from around the state to Canberra to try and get their message across to the government. The only issue that the government has taken up in relation to those community protests is to put in that arbitrary date of 1 July 2003. It has not changed the basic concept, the rottenness, of this particular legislation.I noticed there was only one government member speaking in this place in relation to this particular piece of legislation. Do you know why? Because they have constituents—the same as the member for Shortland, the member for Canberra, the member for Throsby, the following speaker, and me—in their electorates who have said to them, `Fight against this bill. It is unfair.' They cannot now come into this place and support this legislation, because they know it is unfair. They know it is going to hurt the most vulnerable people in their constituencies, as it is going to hurt the most vulnerable people in our constituencies.I have had a whole raft of correspondence and phone calls about the situations of people who are absolutely frightened in relation to this legislation. They might get three, four or five years work and then find themselves back in the same situation—they may have had an aggravation, they may have had another injury—and then they may not be eligible for the same kind of income support that they had previously received.I will not mention names because I have not checked with the constituents and cleared it with them, but I will read from a couple of the many letters I received. The first one says:Dear KellyI am writing to you on behalf of the members of the Stroke Recovery Club. It has been drawn to our attention that the federal Howard government is considering cutting the disability pension. This could have devastating effects on some of our members. These people will never re-enter the workforce because of their disability. Could you please convey this on to the government.Here is another one:Dear Mrs HoareFirstly, I have never felt so disturbed by a government's decision as I am now. I have never written or contacted a member of parliament before but the proposed budget changes that will affect people on a disability pension are nothing less than wicked.That sentiment is echoed in the other letters.I might just conclude by quoting a favoured journalist of mine. I tend to quote her when we are talking about situations of social justice and of equity and access in this place because she is always able to articulate the issue well. I am referring to Adele Horin, who writes for the Sydney Morning Herald. She says:In a perfect world, the new employment specialists will get more people into work, and people with disabilities will be better off. But are many employers willing to hire a 55-year-old chronic asthmatic with a bad back? It would not be an issue if the basic unemployment payment was reasonable, and the whole unemployment system fairer. It is the knowledge that so many long-term unemployed people are reduced to penury on Newstart, and then get caught up in Centrelink's out-of-control system of financial penalties, that has the disability community worried. For people who are unwell or disabled, it will be even worse.This is bad legislation and I urge people not to support it. In particular, I urge those in the Senate to reject this legislation outright.13:48:005952George, Jennie, MPMs GEORGEJH5ThrosbyALP00—I am pleased to be able to speak a second time on this very important piece of legislation which, if it saw the light of day, would have profound and negative consequences for the most vulnerable in our community. I am pleased to be able at least in a short space of time to provide voice for the genuine concerns of many in the disability sector.I find it quite appalling that, as one of the first measures to cover Peter Costello's $1.2 billion budget deficit this year, those who are most vulnerable in our community were the ones that were going to be asked to bear an inordinate sacrifice. I appreciate the fact that the government has withdrawn its first bill. Let me say that I think it did that only because of the widespread reaction and opposition throughout every electorate and in the community generally to the very draconian measures that were being proposed.We are now being asked to consider a second bill which in my judgment is nothing more than a pragmatic response to the level of opposition that the first bill witnessed. The reason why we reject this second bill is because it does not differ in any substantial way from the first bill. That is, all the content of the first bill is replicated in bill No. 2 but, in what the government consider to be a pragmatic response, they are saying, `We'll quarantine people who are currently on the disability support pension, but for new people seeking to be on the pension we'll change the ground rules from 1 July 2003.' As my colleague just mentioned in her speech, the word `saved' is used. That is, `We will save those so that we can quieten or dampen down the kind of protest and the reaction we've had, try and placate the opposition that exists currently in the sector and make people in future bear the brunt of the content of the changes proposed.'The Labor Party continues to maintain its position of principle in opposition to these proposals. We are not going to fall for some kind of arrangement which notionally quarantines those currently on the pension but makes people in future bear the negative adjustments. Let me say how negative they are: it means for people on disability pensions in the future a possible reduction of $52 per fortnight in their pension payment. If you said to any worker, `You just accept a 12 per cent reduction in your take-home pay,' you can imagine the kind of response you would get. Here we are asking those most vulnerable in our community to put themselves forward for a new work test requirement which, if they do not succeed, sees a severe erosion in their quality of life and standard of living. It is Labor's fundamental contention that you do not need to cut a person's entitlement in order to help them get work. We all know that it is important to provide a supportive framework for the transition from being on a disability support pension into paid employment. But you do not do it in the manner proposed by this government. All they are after is saving dollars at the expense of those who need the support of society and the community more than ever. The Labor Party does not accept in principle the notion that you have two classes of people on the same kind of pension. In my constituency there could be neighbours, one who happened to be `saved' by the government's so-called magnanimity and the other—with exactly the same level of disability—who will be forced to possibly accept a $52 reduction in their fortnightly benefit. It is not acceptable and it should never have been proposed.I am particularly concerned because in my electorate of Throsby—and I have just checked the most recent data—in June 2002 there were 5,897 constituents of mine on the disability support pension. They would expect me to speak on their collective behalf in this chamber and to say that what the government is proposing is very deleterious. I have an obligation, to the best of my capacity, to try to convince the government of the error of its ways. So, as I said, in the electorate of Throsby there are 5,897 constituents currently on a disability support pension. As well as those who suffer from a range of physical and intellectual disabilities, many in my electorate—a working-class electorate with a lot of blue-collar workers—are affected with musculoskeletal impairment, men in particular, which is commonly associated with long periods of manual labour and older age degeneration. This latter group, especially those over 55, will be the hardest hit because local labour market conditions will no longer be taken into consideration in the future tests. You have to understand that, for those over 55 in my electorate, the prospects of ever gaining meaningful, full-time paid employment is next to zero. We have had massive downsizing; we have had massive retrenchments. Where are these men over 55 going to find meaningful local employment? All you are doing is putting the bar higher to disadvantage those who need our assistance.Labor's fundamental belief is you do not cut a person's income to help provide them with work. It is not just Labor's view. Let me quote the president of the disability council. In a submission to me, he said:We believe that most people with a disability who can work, in fact want to work. The barriers which prevent them from doing so are systemic, not individual. Reducing eligibility for DSP addresses none of the systemic barriers that constrain the lives of people with a disability or prevent us from time to time from working.Labor agree that more assistance is needed to provide people with disabilities, within a supportive framework, with encouragement to participate in paid employment. But we continue, as a matter of principle, to be adamantly opposed to any notion that cutting the income of people with disabilities can in any way be accepted or tolerated.I also refer to the broader issue of the level of funding in the disability sector. One of the most regrettable things that I have witnessed as a newly elected member of parliament was the gun that was being held at the head of Labor members. In other words, the government was saying, `You support the cuts to the pension or the sector won't get the $100 million extra that was promised in 2000.' I find that an absolutely appalling, amoral and lacking-in-principle approach—a gun at your head: `Cut the pension or you won't get the money that was promised back in 2000.'Interestingly enough, just recently I was very fortunate to co-host a forum with Stephen Martin, the former member for Cunningham. We also had the member for Canberra along, who is a great champion of those in the disability sector, a person of great compassion, a person of great vision and a person of great empathy and understanding. We had a wonderful forum at which disability service providers, the parents of disabled children and constituents on the pension came along and spoke to us about their concerns. We traversed a number of issues. These people were not going to be fooled. They knew that the government had promised $100 million extra in the Commonwealth-state agreement in 2000 and they believe that there is not enough money to go around to meet the unmet needs and demands that have been well recognised in that sector.Quite frankly, they were absolutely appalled to contemplate the notion that the funding that was promised was now going to be held like a gun to the heads of Labor members of parliament if we voted against the disability cuts that were proposed. Shame on the government, and I see colleagues on my side of the House nodding. I think the widespread opposition to the government's proposals, the very forceful and articulate presentation of Labor's case by the member for Lilley and by that great supporter of the disability sector, the member for Canberra, have made the government rethink its position. They were really appreciative that Labor had taken the time to come and listen at this forum. And there was a whole range of issues that were raised; let me just raise a few with you. The first thing they said was that the funding for the sector is inadequate and there are a whole range of needs that have not been met. One of the big issues for people in my electorate is that parents are ageing who have had responsibility for bringing up disabled children. What happens to these children when the parents die? It was a big issue that was raised. I want to place on record my commendation of the efforts of one of my constituents, Jim Lyon. Together with a group from the Catholic church, he has been able to secure land at Primbee to build a residential accommodation facility for young disabled people whose parents pass on and who are left alone. Another issue that was raised was respite care and the inadequate facilities that exist in this regard. A third issue—and I think many members of parliament have found this too; I have found it when I have visited nursing homes—is that many of our aged nursing home facilities often accommodate young people with disabilities within the aged care facility because of lack of proper accommodation facilities for people with disabilities. We also visited with the member for Canberra a wonderful business enterprise, formerly a sheltered workshop: Greenacres Association.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Throsby will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice5955595514:00:005955Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, yesterday on three separate occasions you said that you were looking at providing greater flexibility to families to repay their family tax benefit debts instead of continuing to strip their tax returns. Why then did Senator Vanstone defy you in an interview on Lateline last night by saying that families will continue to `have what overpayment there is taken out of their refund'. Who is correct, Prime Minister? Are you going to continue to strip families' tax returns or not?5955Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the Leader of the Opposition is that we are both correct and you are wrong. That is the answer. As we indicated yesterday, we are looking at ways of making the system more flexible. At this stage, I am not going to rule individual options in or out, but what I am stating is that two principles remain: if you receive an overpayment, that should be paid back and, if you are underpaid, at the reconciliation time there should be a top-up. The other principle is that we are dealing here, as Senator Vanstone said—in what I might say was an excellent Lateline interview last night—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—As honourable members know, I watch that program every night. I came home from a very pleasant dinner, I turned on my television set and there was Senator Vanstone being interviewed by Tony Jones. I thought she did extremely well. She made it very clear that what we are dealing with here is a tax benefit and, when you are dealing with a tax benefit, it is only fair and reasonable and logical that it be dealt with inter alia in the context of tax assessments. I made it clear yesterday, and I repeat here today, that the use of taxation refunds to recover amounts owing to the Commonwealth that have been overpaid is a perfectly reasonable thing. It is something which the Labor Party did when it was in office.Could I also insert into the record a figure that I think is pretty relevant to this: on current indications—and there are only broad indications at the present—we are likely to have about 600,000 cases of repayment at the time of reconciliation. But, by comparison, we are going to have about 400,000 examples of where people are going to receive more money because they have been underpaid during the course of the year. So I repeat: we are not going to rule individual propositions about making the thing more flexible in or out. We are looking at making the system more flexible, but that flexibility will be consistent with the principle that, if you are overpaid, you have got to pay it back and, if you are underpaid, you are entitled to a top-up. And because it is a tax benefit, it is only reasonable that tax refunds be part of the reconciliation process.595514:04:005955Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House about the worsening food crisis in southern Africa? Would he inform us about the impacts of Zimbabwe's land policies on the food supply in the region?5955Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Mackellar for her question. As the House knows only too well, the government is deeply concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe—a view that I know is shared not only by many members of the House but also by many of their constituents. The Prime Minister, as honourable members know, at the moment is the Chairman-In-Office of the Commonwealth, and he has worked very effectively with his troika partners, the President of South Africa and the President of Nigeria, in suspending Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth on 19 March last year. At that time, the troika gave President Mugabe every opportunity to respond to the requirements of the March Marlborough House declaration. They were that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Don McKinnon, should engage President Mugabe and that President Mugabe should undertake reconciliation within Zimbabwe, including with the opposition there, through the specially appointed troika representatives from Nigeria and South Africa. The fact is that President Mugabe has not responded positively to any of these proposals. The specially appointed troika representatives have not been able to take forward any process of effective reconciliation, and the Secretary-General has not been able to engage with President Mugabe. As at this point in time, the Australian government is maintaining close contact with the South African and Nigerian governments, exploring what further action the troika, as the leaders of the Commonwealth, might be able to take under the auspices of the Commonwealth. As we have said on many occasions, we are actively retaining our option to introduce the smart sanctions that we flagged some time ago but, as we have also pointed out, the timing and context of any triggering of those smart sanctions is significant. Obviously, we must take into consideration the progress being made—if further progress can be made—through the Commonwealth troika process. President Mugabe's land policies amount to not only an exercise in what could be described as ethnic cleansing but an attack on the welfare of the people of Zimbabwe and on the region of southern Africa more broadly. A UN Food and Agricultural Organisation report released to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa says that close to 13 million people in southern Africa are in need of emergency food aid and, incredibly, around six million of those 13 million live in Zimbabwe alone. Of course the drought has contributed to this crisis—and nobody would detract from that—but the depletion of grain reserves and a poor economic performance have been very significant factors. The FAO report says:In Zimbabwe, reduced planting in the large scale commercial sector due to land reform activities compounded the problem [of low crop yields].Zimbabwe's bad land policies have impacted on the region's entire food market. It is estimated that only one-quarter of would-be settlers, those who have been given land in the so-called land reform pursued by President Mugabe, have actually taken up their plots, or had done so by mid-August of this year. Many of those people have no farming skills or, indeed, are able to afford essential seed or fertiliser.It is significant that the former finance minister of Zimbabwe, who has now been dismissed, Mr Makoni, told the Zimbabwe parliament on 1 August that the agriculture sector in Zimbabwe would shrink by nearly 25 per cent this year. The Commercial Farmers Union says that commercial agriculture will fall by 40 per cent and maize production by 66 per cent. Without the commercial farming sector, it is estimated that Zimbabwe can only sustain about one-quarter of its population.The Australian government have committed $26 million to addressing the serious humanitarian needs of southern and eastern Africa, including Zimbabwe, but we do remain deeply concerned by reports that the government of Zimbabwe is manipulating the distribution of food it has itself procured. The government are not seeking to penalise starving people for poor governance in their countries. We are confident that food provided by donors is getting, in most cases, to the most needy. But the fact is that the government of Zimbabwe itself—and, in particular, the President of Zimbabwe—has, through the pursuit of its policies, done enormous damage to the welfare of ordinary people in Zimbabwe. It is a matter we remain deeply concerned about, and we will continue to do all we can to try to achieve a better result, as best the international community can, for the people of Zimbabwe.595614:10:005956Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister, and it follows his earlier answer in which he said that tax returns will still be able to be stripped to recover overpayments and family debts. Prime Minister, are you aware that the head of Senator Vanstone's department told Senate estimates in February that no decision had been taken to allow tax returns to be stripped to recover overpayments? When did your government take the decision to allow the stripping of tax returns, and why at no stage did your government announce that publicly?5957Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Leader of the Opposition chooses to employ the expression `strip your tax return', hoping to create the impression in the community that the Commonwealth is claiming something that it is not entitled to claim.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—That is not what he is saying.ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is what the Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to do, and I am pointing it out for the benefit of the House and for the benefit of the Australian public. Where there is a repayment obligation to the Commonwealth, and particularly where that is within the taxation system, it has long been the policy of government to claim that back at refund time. It was made very clear in the legislation, it was made very clear in the Tax Pack, and what the government is doing is totally unexceptional.The Leader of the Opposition can use emotive words such as `stripping tax returns', endeavouring to create an impression that something is being taken to which there is no entitlement, but let me simply restate the principle that, where there is an overpayment, it is only fair that that money be recovered and, where there is an underpayment, it is only fair that people who have been underpaid get their payments topped up. That is a statement of a very fair, even and, I think, totally acceptable approach. Surely the Leader of the Opposition and those who sit behind him on this issue are not suggesting that a family living in one part of Australia that gets exactly what it is entitled to should then be asked to accept a situation where a family that is entitled to exactly the same amount of money gets paid a significantly greater amount and is then given an opportunity to retain that.Last year, because it was the first year of the introduction of the system and we were in a transitional phase, there was a waiver of $1,000. I think that was entirely appropriate, and I think those who sit behind me would agree that it was entirely appropriate that we should have that waiver. But now that the system is more familiar to people—and it is a system, I might say, that is infinitely more generous than anything that was provided by the former government—it is only fair that, if people get paid more than they are entitled to, we ask for it back and that, if there is a capacity to set that off against a tax refund that is due to them, because it is a tax benefit, that set-off occurs. I think most people would regard that as perfectly reasonable, and they would regard it as equally reasonable that, if somebody has been underpaid because they have overestimated their income, they get a top-up at reconciliation time and end up getting a bigger tax refund. For the life of me I cannot understand what is unfair about that. If we were actually saying to people, `We're not going to allow you to keep what you're entitled to,' then the opposition would have a point. We are not saying that. I indicated yesterday that if there are ways of making the system more flexible, consistent with the broad principles I have outlined, then we are going to try and do that. At this stage, I am not going to rule particular propositions in or out. I also remind the House, for their interest, that on present trends you are looking at about 400,000 families getting a top-up and perhaps 600,000 being obliged to make some kind of repayment. That represents what was always in contemplation at the time the system was established. If it can be made more flexible we will do so. I have to say to the opposition: whatever you say about this and whatever points you raise, you cannot gainsay the fact that this is a far more generous family tax benefit system than ever obtained under your administration. The Australian public clearly recognises it now, as they clearly recognised it just over nine months ago when, in electorates where the vote particularly of young families was very important, they supported the government in an overwhelming fashion. That is the political reality for the Leader of the Opposition, and nothing he or his mate from Lilley says in this debate is going to alter that fact. 595714:16:005957Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on industrial relations issues affecting the transport industry? 5958Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for Dawson for her question. Having spoken in this House recently about the very substantial and welcome recovery in the aviation sector in this country over the last 12 months, it is very regrettable indeed that we now face the fact that there will be further significant disruptions to air services this coming Friday. This is not in the interests of the aviation sector. It is certainly not in the interests of the travelling public or the tourism industry. We ought to remember that the tourism industry now employs some half a million people across Australia. We desperately need to recover our reputation internationally as a very desirable and reliable place to visit. Yet, despite this, we know that the air traffic controller union, Civil Air, has given notice that it intends to take stop-work action from 5 p.m. on Friday for a period of five hours. This has been calculated to cause maximum disruption. There is no doubt about that. It will have the effect of grounding all flights, with the possible exception of accident and emergency operations. This is not the time to be engaging in this sort of industrial thuggery. The actions are vastly disproportionate—An opposition member—When is the time?4K4Mr ANDERSON—When is it okay? Is the honourable member opposite suggesting that it is wise at a time like this when the industry is just recovering, when you have 500,000 people employed in the tourism industry all looking for a significant improvement in the prospects for their industry? What ought to be noted about this is that the proposed actions are grossly disproportionate to the grievance. Until the vote was taken last week, both sides—Civil Air and Airservices—had essentially agreed to the new agreement and the fact that it ought to go forward. Yet you now have a dispute over sick leave and the number of days leave that air traffic controllers can take. The effect of these actions far outweighs the effective level of grievance.I think it is worth noting in this place that the member for the Batman and the Leader of the Opposition have said nothing at any time about this. They have not sought in any way to dissuade this irresponsible and disproportionate industrial action that will do a lot of damage to aviation and tourism at a time when we ought to be looking to lock in the recovery. Never mind the Hawke-Wran review, this really tells you quite clearly who still runs the ALP. Another example of this is provided by the MUA. Members of the House might be aware that the MUA is currently running a pretty disgusting industrial campaign over the issue of coastal trading permits. The MUA enjoys, it has to be said, the strong support of the member for Batman. He is right in there with them. Actually he is having a bob each way. There is a 50-50 rule here because he also supports the government's policy of shipping permits—he has said so. I am advised that in response to a question at the Shipping Australia lunch as to whether permits would continue under a Labor government, the shadow ministry replied that permits would continue to be issued but shippers would have to demonstrate they could obtain Australian shipping. That is precisely the policy position that applies now and that we deploy. It is no different. Foreign ships are only permitted to carry coastal cargoes when Australian licence vessels are not available. There has been no change in the law from the time when they operated it to now. The fact is that the member for Batman supports the government's policy on the one hand and supports the MUA policy on the other hand. It is a true 50-50 split and a real relic of the past. 595814:21:005958Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister and concerns his undertakings to find solutions to the family payment debt crisis and confirmation by him today that over 600,000 Australian families are affected by it. Prime Minister, I refer again to Minister Vanstone's interview on Lateline last night in which she said that `interest free loans will not be allowed as part of the solution to these families'. How can your government continue to deny battling families flexibility in repaying tax debts when it has allowed investors in mass marketed tax schemes a two-year interest free period to repay tax and a full remission of penalties and interest on tax scheme debt? If it is good enough to allow interest free repayments to tax minimisers, why not to ordinary Australian families who you have misled and now slugged? 5959Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I think I recall a reference to mass marketed schemes. You played the George Gear card yesterday—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Double standards!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Double standards! George Gear was the Assistant Treasurer—I do not think it was of the Howard government; I think he was—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You allowed it!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will acquaint himself with standing order 55 and abide by it. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I do not think that we should spend too much time on George Gear in answering this question. The position is—as I have restated and let me state it again in case the Leader of the Opposition is having a little trouble coming to grips with what is involved—there is no debt crisis. What is involved is the possibility of some greater flexibility in a system that is delivering family tax benefits of the like that no Australian government in the past has delivered. I can only repeat that they will continue to be delivered in the generous way they have been in the past. If there are ways in which the system can be made more flexible, we will adopt them. If there is an overpayment, we would seek to have that overpayment addressed. If there is an underpayment, we would continue to address that. It is entirely proper, because it is a tax benefit, that the taxation system—particularly the assessment processes of the taxation system—be involved. I acknowledge the nod of approval from the member for Batman, and I agree. The member for Batman obviously regards this as an entirely proper and fair approach, and I welcome that. It is a good amendment of life in him. There is no crisis. There is a flailing around by the Leader of the Opposition to find some kind of issue on which to get a little bit of traction, and that is not working. We are going to see whether there is a bit more flexibility and, when we have determined that, we will make an announcement.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—There is no policy, but you need more flexibility!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition trades on the fact that he believes that, in an effort to be even handed, I will allow him more interjections than anyone else. If he is wondering whether I am in business or not, he will continue in his present vein. 595914:25:005959Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the results of the June quarter balance of payments released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics?5959Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his interest in the Australian economy. I can report to the House today that the current account deficit for the June quarter was $7.5 billion in seasonally adjusted terms, which was up from $5.2 billion in the March quarter. For the quarter, the deficit was around 4.1 per cent of GDP, which is larger than it was in June of last year, when it was two per cent, but smaller than it was in June the year before, when it was 4.5 per cent. In the quarter, exports of goods and services fell slightly, although rural goods were almost unchanged. I expect that the effects of the drought have not yet flowed into rural exports; the outcome for the quarter showed that they were unchanged in March, but you would expect an effect in future quarters. Imports of goods and services were higher, rising six per cent in the June quarter. In particular, that was on the back of strong, continuing imports for civil aircraft—the renewal of the Qantas fleet and quite possibly, too, the government's civil aircraft fleet, which came through in those figures. Net exports are expected to subtract about 1.3 per cent from the national accounts which are due next week.This is consistent with the story of the economy as we have been reading it over recent times—that is, Australia is growing faster than any of the advanced industrial economies. But we are not immune from world developments having an effect on exports—meaning that net exports will contract, notwithstanding the strength of the Australian domestic economy in relation to housing and retail and confidence generally.Australia's net foreign debt was $329 billion in the June quarter, 47 per cent of GDP, down from the peak of 50 per cent in the March quarter of last year. The debt servicing ratio continues at low levels, being around 9.2 per cent in the June quarter unchanged from March. It is certainly as strong as it has been going back to the pre-banana republic of Mr Keating—the pre-1985 and 1986 days. I am sure that both sides of the House will welcome that.We will be getting the national accounts next week which will give us the latest fix on the Australian economy. As I have been saying on numbers of occasions, we will not be immune from world developments, particularly the developments in the United States economy—the engine of global growth—but Australia stands much better prepared to cope with those developments and particularly to cope with the export downturn because of tax reforms which have taken taxes off exports, given our exporters a better opportunity in world markets and enabled them to cope with difficult trading conditions.596014:29:005960McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Treasurer and it also relates to today's ABS figures. Treasurer, didn't your Prime Minister promise when he launched the debt truck in 1995 that his policies would cut foreign debt? Hasn't foreign debt almost doubled since your Prime Minister made his promise? Treasurer, where is your debt truck now?5960Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I said earlier, Australia's debt-to-GDP ratio was 47 per cent in the June quarter. Australia's foreign debt since 1996 has been around 40 to 47 per cent. So that is an increase, in percentage terms, of about seven per cent on 40. Just to get some perspective on debt, in June 1983 the debt-to-GDP ratio in Australia was 14 per cent— DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—We're off foreign debt already!CT4Mr COSTELLO—No, we are on foreign debt, I am afraid. In June 1983 the foreign debt-to-GDP ratio was 14 per cent. After 13 years of Labor government it had trebled to 40 per cent. If this government had a record like the Labor Party's, instead of now having a 47 per cent debt-to-GDP ratio, the ratio would be 120 per cent. That is why we love questions from the Labor Party on debt. They are called a `Kylie' in the parlance—I should be so lucky as to get a question on debt from the Labor Party! But not only that. That area of debt which the government is most responsible for—namely, Commonwealth government debt—has fallen from the Labor Party height of 20 per cent to under five per cent today. I guess one of the things that most Australians now recognise about the coalition economic management is not only have we been able to repay debt but we have now repaid $62 billion of Labor Party debt—and that is Commonwealth government debt—by making Australia in one of the strongest positions in the world.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—By selling assets!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition has made another Kylie interjection. He says, `By selling assets.' The Labor Party sold assets, expended them, ran a deficit and still ran up debt after taking into account asset sales. When the Labor Party sold the Commonwealth Bank, it sold off the asset, expended it, still ran a $10 billion deficit and ran up debt at the same time as it sold assets. I do not think the enormity of the mismanagement over those last five years of Labor government has yet dawned on the Leader of the Opposition—who, in all fairness, does not pretend to be a great student of economics. Labor sold assets, expended the proceeds, ran a deficit and, after allowing for the proceeds of asset sales, still ran up debt by $80 billion. The coalition, which was elected to do a job, has now repaid $62 billion of Labor Party debt. That has put Australia in a stronger position. We are one of the strongest economies of the Western world. That is what economic management does, and that is where Labor failed.596114:33:005961Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Can the minister advise the House how the funding provided by the Howard government for state government schools supplements the funding provided by state and territory governments? Is the minister aware of other statements or policies relating to school funding?5961Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for Robertson for his question on school funding, for his very strong commitment in particular to the building of a high school at Kariong and his longstanding support for getting resources into Avoca Beach Public School and all the schools in his electorate.Government state schools are called state schools in many parts of the country because they are regulated, administered and primarily funded by state governments. In fact, as the federal minister for education, I am not able to visit a state government school without the permission of the state minister. So in New South Wales, for example, I write, `Dear Mr Watkins, please may I visit Kingswood High School?' Across Australia, there are 2.27 million students attending government state schools. They represent 69 per cent of the students in school education. The state government schools receive in total about 84 per cent of their funding from state and territory governments; about four per cent of the funding comes from the hard work and sacrifices of parents, through cake stalls and raffles; and then about 12 per cent of the funding for state government schools comes from the Commonwealth government. It is important that, this year, the Howard government increased its funding to support the state governments to fund their schools by 5.7 per cent.Government members interjecting—RW5Dr NELSON—That is right: it has gone up to $2.4 billion this year, which will be added to the $12 billion contributed by the state and territory governments. I have had my department, with my support and assistance, look very carefully at the funding made available by state and territory governments to their schools. Every state and territory government budget has now been delivered. The Commonwealth has increased funding to government state schools by 5.7 per cent. Not one state or territory government in this country has increased the funding to its state government schools by as much as the 5.7 per cent increase delivered by the Commonwealth government this year. That 5.7 per cent increase in funding brings to 52 per cent, over a six-year period, the increase in funding from the Commonwealth government to state schools, when enrolments increased by only 1.4 per cent.I have established a league table of state and territory governments to rank them against the Commonwealth's performance. All those state and territory governments—every single one of them—are below the Commonwealth's performance. For example, the missing millions total $478 million. If state and territory governments had increased their funding to their schools by as much as the Commonwealth did to support them, there would be $478 million available for state government schools. In the state of Victoria I visited the Seaford North Primary School recently with the member for Dunkley. There, at 9 o'clock in the morning, in rain, primary school students performed a rock eisteddfod in bare feet on cracked asphalt on a basketball court, when the Victorian government had increased its funding to those state government schools by only 2.9 per cent. Had it increased it by 5.3 per cent, as we did in the state of Victoria, there would be $95 million more available for state school students in the state of Victoria.If you go to South Australia, to the electorate of Grey, to the Orroroo Area School or if you go to the Gawler Public School, you will find that the Commonwealth government has already given to the state government of South Australia $1½ million to fund capital works in those schools. Not only has it not been spent; the state government has cut its funding for capital works in that state by 7.8 per cent and is holding the money. I am absolutely determined that we will force that state to spend Commonwealth money on Commonwealth funded projects in state schools. I am also asked about alternative policies. There was a polemic contribution to the Melbourne Age on 5 June this year by Labor's spokesperson on education. SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Who's that?RW5Dr NELSON—The member for Jagajaga. She said, in part, that the Commonwealth budget gives nothing new to government schools except annual adjustments to cover cost increases. That is absolutely wrong, because in the state of Victoria alone, as I said, there would have been $95 million more for state government schools. I see that the member for Canning is smiling. He knows all about the Armadale School. It could do with a bit of paint. If Western Australia had kept up with the Commonwealth, there would be another $8 million in Western Australia. So $478 million is missing from state and territory governments. The member for Jagajaga and the Labor Party need to turn the magnifying glass away from the Labor Party navel and apply it to state governments when it comes to education funding. There are two things that can fix this. The first thing that can fix this is political will, and the second thing that can fix it—which is also opposed by the Labor Party—is the GST.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—Mr Speaker, I was wondering if the minister could table that document on funding graphs, for the information of members.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Is the minister prepared to table the document?RW5Dr NELSON—Mr Speaker, I am prepared to table this document.009CWCorcoran, Ann, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will clarify the matter later and recognise the member for Isaacs.596214:41:005962Corcoran, Ann, MPMs CORCORAN009CWIsaacsALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you recall saying yesterday to this House: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 ...Have you also seen today's Age newspaper, which reports that the ANZ will:... tolerate the loss of only $40 million of the $120 million total loss it expects to suffer as a result of RBA reforms. ANZ's head of investor relations, Philip Gentry, said the bank would make up the revenue by cutting costs and increasing fees.Treasurer, why will you not give special transitional powers to the ACCC to ensure that these benefits do flow back to customers and small businesses and not to the banks?5962Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I did see those comments. As a consequence, I had them followed up with the ANZ Bank and informed the ANZ Bank that certainly the government would not be tolerating any attempt to claw back that money from merchants. The ANZ told me—`categorically' is the word—that they would not be doing so, and sent me the media release that they put out in relation to the matter, which does not indicate that they would seek to be doing that by putting up other fees. What will happen, I expect, because the interchange fee does not allow for the costs of loyalty schemes and so on, is that some of these credit cards will have their loyalty schemes carved out of them, and that is totally consistent with the methodology which was proposed by the RBA. Interestingly enough, one of the complaints that the bank makes—I do not know if it is true—is that Qantas has recently put up the price of its loyalty schemes. So it will be interesting to see how that actually works out.What the government does expect, of course, is that the RBA methodology will be monitored by the RBA. The RBA has put that methodology in place, and the RBA will be expected to monitor compliance with it. The RBA has a very direct way of doing that with the banks. We will be looking for the Reserve Bank of Australia to do that, and I have no doubt that they will have the capacity.While I am on my feet, let me remind the House that I think there has been general welcome of these reforms. I think consumers have welcomed them. I think, mostly, retailers have welcomed them. The government welcomed them. And for a time, until you thought that you might have a political opportunity, even the Labor Party welcomed them. But I made the prediction yesterday that the Labor Party's bipartisan support would go very lukewarm as soon as they saw an opportunity. That is why I am interested to see you come back and try to distinguish yourself from the government, rather than giving the government the credit for putting in place the arrangements which brought this about.The arrangements which brought this about were the government's reform of the financial system and the introduction of the Payment System (Regulation) Act 1998—which did not exist under 13 years of Labor government—which allowed the RBA to designate a payments scheme and to impose a methodology. That would not have been the case and in fact was not the case under 13 years of Labor government. That was a valuable reform. It has led to a new methodology. I think the Labor Party, deep in its heart, should acknowledge the way in which these reforms are now improving the financial system.It has always been a policy of this government to encourage new entrants into the financial system. That is why this government allowed building societies and credit unions access to the cheque system, which had not been the case under the Labor Party. Now we want to allow prudentially supervised new entrants into the credit system as well, which again was not allowed by the Labor Party. I pay tribute to the member for Wannon for the work that he has done in relation to this. I pay tribute to Stan Wallis and the reforms in his report and the introduction of the payment systems act under this government, which has allowed new entrants into the market—new entrants, new competition and better deals for consumers. 596314:46:005963Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would he outline to the House the benefits of the Ralph business tax reform process? Furthermore, can the Treasurer tell us what further business tax reform initiatives the government is undertaking?5963Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Wannon for his question and for his interest not only in financial institutions policy but also in relation to tax policy. I thank him for following these matters, which are important for Australia. They deserve a lot of interest and I am pleased to see that they get interest on this side of the House.When the Review of Business Taxation was done under the chairmanship of John Ralph, the review recommended the investigation of a new concept in relation to business taxation, which was known as the tax value method—sometimes known as option 2. It was a proposal essentially to rewrite the whole concept of how we would assess tax, by looking at the change in the tax value of assets during the year of assessment. The government referred this concept to the Board of Taxation in August 2000 for consultation and advice. The board has now reported to the government that there is significant industry concern about the cost and uncertainty associated with the tax value method; a widespread perception that whilst it might offer benefits in some areas, it would generate greater complexity and uncertainty in others; and that there would be substantial transitional costs for tax advisers and business moving to such a system. As a consequence, the board has recommended to the government that the government not proceed with the tax value method. The government has accepted that recommendation and no further work will be done in relation to the tax value method or in relation to option 2.The government will develop, in consultation with business, a systematic tax treatment of rights and black hole expenditures, with a view to implementing those changes by July 2005. I pay tribute to the Board of Taxation for the extensive work which it did in relation to this. It organised seminars; it consulted widely. It is an example of how the board has worked very successfully. It has come back to the government with a pretty widely supported recommendation and the government accepts it. I also pay tribute to John Ralph for the work that he did in reviewing Australia's business taxation system. That was a seminal report.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Pity you ratted on most of it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne!CT4Mr COSTELLO—It has already formed the basis for many of the government's improvements to the company taxation system—improvements like cutting company tax; abolishing stamp duties on listed securities; abolishing financial institutions duty; cutting capital gains tax; allowing foreign tax-exempts to invest in venture capital, tax free here in Australia; and improvements in relation to rollover relief and the like. Those changes have been of enormous assistance to Australian business. Our reform program goes on, but the government will not be proceeding with the tax value method.596414:51:005964Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Could you inform the House whether you are aware of claims by Professor Alan Trounson of a cured paralysis in a test rat achieved from embryonic cells, when in fact the animal was treated using tissue from an aborted foetus? Prime Minister, do you intend to review the Commonwealth's multimillion dollar commitment to Professor Trounson's Monash research unit on the basis that the public, the media and, more importantly, victims of paralysis have apparently been misled by this scientist?5964Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In response to the member for Calare, I can inform him that, when I heard of the inaccurate representation on this video, I sought advice about the implications of it, and I particularly had in mind the very research grant to which he has referred. I am not making any judgment. I am seeking advice, as is proper in the situation. It is incumbent on people who hold very respected scientific positions in this country to be very careful about the claims they make. As is well known in this parliament, I support the legislation which is now before the parliament—in fact, I introduced it. The revelations are disturbing to me, but they do not alter my support for the legislation. The fact that there may have been a misrepresentation does not in itself destroy the validity of the arguments that I have embraced in relation to the legislation, but that does not lessen my concern.The recommendation that the group to which Professor Trounson belongs receive the grant was made by an independent body and the government accepted the recommendation in good faith. I am not saying at this stage that any action in relation to that is necessary, but it is necessary that I get some advice. It is necessary for me, I hope without prejudicing the debate, to say that people who make scientific claims have to be absolutely careful in what they say. People who are advocating each side have to be very careful. I think there has been a talking up of some of the benefits of the science—by the New South Wales Premier, for example. There have been some claims made by Mr Carr that I think are unfairly raising expectations of what might accrue. I say that once again as somebody who is on the same side as Mr Carr in this debate.When you are dealing with people who have profound disabilities and whose expectation of a decent life is miserable, in my view you owe them two things: to do everything humanly possible to find a cure, if there is one available, for their disability; and not to unfairly inflate expectations. Everybody who comes to this debate has a responsibility to behave intelligently. This debate has brought out the best in this parliament. There have been some very fine contributions on both sides and it is a reminder to all of us and a reminder to the Australian public that this chamber can be a place of enlightened, impassioned and, I hope, constructive debate. 596414:55:005964Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is there new evidence that the government's workplace relations policies have been successful in helping Australian workers? If so, would you provide this evidence to the House?5964Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am glad to provide the evidence to the House, and I note in response to the member for Ryan's question that there are nearly 1,000 workers in his electorate who are enjoying the benefits of Australian workplace agreements under federal law. Thanks to the policies of this government, Australian workers are enjoying more jobs, higher pay and fewer strikes. There are nearly one million new jobs—since March 1996—strikes are at the lowest level since records were first kept in 1913 and average weekly full-time earnings are up 12 per cent in real terms since 1996—that is, 12 per cent in just six years compared to just five per cent over the previous 13 years under the former Labor government.These outstanding results have been driven by a big jump in labour productivity. Under this government's policies, labour productivity has increased on average by 2½ per cent a year. It increased by just 1½ per cent a year under members opposite. In turn, this productivity increase has been driven by two big cultural shifts. The first shift has been from industry to workplace bargaining, because every workplace is different. The second shift has been towards direct relationships between workers and managers, because Australian workers today do not need outsiders to tell them how to think and how to bargain.I note—and I am sure members opposite will be pleased to know—that fully 15 per cent of certified agreements registered under the federal act are now negotiated directly between workers and management without the involvement of a union. I am sure members opposite will be pleased to know that so far more than 250,000 Australian workplace agreements have been registered. The latest survey shows that, compared to similar workers, employees on AWAs feel more positive towards management, they feel less stressed, they feel more positive about their pay and conditions and they feel that they are more in control of their own working conditions. AWAs are good for workers, good for management, good for business and good for jobs. They are not necessarily good for unions, and that is why members opposite have promised to abolish AWAs if they ever get back into power. I table this document: Agreement making in Australia under the Workplace Relations Act.596514:58:005965Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Telstra $3.7 billion profit announced today is built on a cut in capital expenditure of $600 million, staff cuts of over 4,000 over the past year, substantial increases in the prices for mobile phones, text messaging and Internet access and a doubling in home line rental fees in recent years? Deputy Prime Minister, won't fully privatising Telstra simply mean even less investment, less service and higher prices for consumers, particularly in regional Australia? Why do you support the full privatisation of Telstra?5965Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question and note with interest and appreciation his newfound concern for the services that country people enjoy in the area of telecommunications. I will take the first part of the question on notice, because I am not in a position to be able to respond fully to his particular assertions. In relation to the latter, the point I want to make—and I think that it builds very much on the point that the Prime Minister made yesterday—is that the degree, the quality, the length and the breadth of the services that people who depend on a universal service obligation enjoy or do not enjoy are not in themselves functions of ownership. That is the point that needs to be established. I say that without any fear of contradiction. As somebody from rural and regional Australia who knows that the time at which there was the greatest disparity between the sort of services that my city cousins enjoyed and that I experienced was when we had a wholly owned PMG and an ALP in power which did not have in place a customer service guarantee at all, which had a USO that was not worth the paper it was written on and which had no interest or willpower to pursue either. By contrast, the simple reality is that—and I trust that this will be reflected in the New England media as well—as the Prime Minister clearly indicated yesterday, when a government has a commitment to rural and regional Australia and the willpower to put in place an effective USO and a customer service guarantee and to pursue them and to make them work, you will get the services you need. Let's lift this above the childish level of intellectual input provided by the member opposite and get to some realities here. Services are the key to decentralisation in rural and regional Australia; they are what matter. No-one is more committed to getting regional telecommunication services up to scratch and keeping them there than I am, but the longer we pretend this myopic view that ownership is the key to services in country Australia, the longer we will be engaging in a debate that is nothing more than a hoodwink.596615:02:005966Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister inform the House of the federal government's efforts to protect Australia's flora and fauna from exotic pests and diseases? What practical steps is the government taking to ensure that Australia is able to respond to and recover from a serious disease incursion like foot-and-mouth?5966Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Forrest who, like all members on this side of the House, has a deep and abiding concern about protecting the clean and green image of our nation and ensuring that we maintain an effective border against the entry of pests and diseases into this country. That is why this government was prepared to commit $600 million towards upgrading our quarantine and border services so that we now have the most effective screening mechanism that our nation has ever known. That has certainly made a major impact in securing the safety of our nation and in avoiding the risk of pests and diseases coming into this country. The foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the UK provided a very graphic example of the potential impact to a country when a major disease outbreak occurs. Foot-and-mouth disease cost the British economy around £12 billion. ABARE has estimated that, if a similar outbreak were to occur in Australia, we would lose export revenues of $9 billion over a period of 12 months. The estimate of the effect on our economy, provided in a recent Productivity Commission report, suggests that the impact on our economy could be as much as $13 billion. That impact would clearly be devastating for our nation, so it is important that we maintain a high standard of preparedness and a capacity to deal with any outbreak, should it occur.The Council of Australian Governments has also taken this matter seriously and charged agriculture ministers around Australia with putting together a strategy to deal with these sorts of issues. It has been suggested that not only do we need this strategy; we also need to test it to make sure that it will work. So, from 9 to 12 September, a major exercise called Exercise Minotaur will be held to test Australia's responsiveness to a major pest and disease outbreak. This exercise will involve all levels of government—around 1,000 people—and it will endeavour to establish how effectively we are able to respond to a major outbreak of the nature of that which occurred in the UK. I want to stress that this is an exercise. We are going to great lengths to advise people around the world, in our embassies in other countries, that there will not be a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Australia between 9 and 12 September—it is just an exercise. There will also be extensive briefings of the community so that there can be no unnecessary concerns in that regard. It will be a very significant exercise. Nearly 100 countries have asked to be observers, and there will be a team of international people to look at what we are doing and to help provide some critical analysis of our capacity to deal with these issues. This is a clear demonstration that not only have we been prepared to put in place a program to effectively deal with an outbreak of this nature but we are prepared to examine it in a very open and professional way so that, should we have the horror of our improved border defences being breached in some way, we also have a capacity to effectively address the concerns within our country. This exercise is important for our nation and, in alerting people to it today, I want to emphasise again that it is an exercise. We do not anticipate that there will be an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country but, should it happen, we will be ready to address any issues which arise.596715:06:005967Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Minister, are you aware of an international study of higher education costs referred to by your department that shows that Australian students who live independently pay $8,000 more than German students, $7,000 more than British students and $2,000 more than American students in living and tuition costs. Minister, given that Australian students are already paying some of the highest costs in the world, why is it that the only options that you are considering will increase the burdens on students and their families?5967Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question and for her interest in higher education. On 26 April this year I launched the first of what is a series of seven discussion papers to inform the review of Australian higher education. In addition to that, I established a specialised unit within my department and brought in some people from outside to actually look at the issues facing Australian higher education. I also established a reference group to advise me through this process with a view to putting Australian higher education on a sounder footing for the 21st century. The reason I am a little bit surprised to receive this question is that in four months, 35 media releases and 12,180 words there has not been one single positive contribution toward Australian higher education reform from the Australian Labor Party.At the moment, as has been pointed out by a number of informed contributors to Australian higher education and participants in it, the issues that face Australian universities are not just about funding. The issues that face Australian universities are about the definitional roles of our 38 universities in modern Australia. To what extent should research, teaching and scholarship define a university? Why do we have 40 per cent attrition rates, where do we have them and how can we prevent them? We also need to understand how we can recognise and fund the quite complex, onerous and increasingly expensive community service obligations faced by regional universities. How can we get better commercialisation of intellectual property? Royalties, trademarks and licences represent only 0.16 per cent of university revenue.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question that was asked was about the huge level of—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. The minister's answer was relevant to the question. RW5Dr NELSON—In relation to students, 10 years ago, in 1992, there were 100,000 Australians eligible for university entry who were not able to gain a place under the Labor government. The unmet demand this year was between 10,500 and 17,500. That means that unmet demand is the lowest that it has been for a decade. On the issue of fees—I am glad the member for Jagajaga asked—the Australian taxpayer pays for three-quarters of the cost of university education in this country. The student—him or herself—pays for about one quarter. PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—You want to increase it.RW5Dr NELSON—The money is lent by the Australian taxpayer to that student.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—You want to put it up.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga has asked her question.RW5Dr NELSON—The student does not pay off any of the fee or any of the loan until they graduate. There are 1,115,317 Australians who owe money to the Australian taxpayer for their education. Of those, 91 per cent owe less than $16,000—that is a Mitsubishi three-door Mirage, drive away no more to pay. The average HECS debt is $7,800. That means that more than 700,000 Australians owe less than it would cost to go into the Preston Harvey Norman and buy a top-of-the-range flat screen television set. I also draw the honourable member's attention to an article in the Australian Financial Review on 15 March this year. The article states:Australia is still top of the list for its 130,000 international students at tertiary institutions when it comes to the affordability of courses and living expenses.... ... ...A report by the universities' marketing development arm, IDP Education Australia, and Australian Education International, compared the cost ...with that of other countries—In the US, an undergraduate degree and living costs will be two to three times more expensive for an international student, while the UK costs up to 66 per cent more. Canada, while cheaper than either, was still up to 30 per cent more expensive.It also ought to be pointed out that the Youth Allowance is indexed to the consumer price index. The Youth Allowance introduced by this government also extended rent assistance to students for the first time.One of the points that also ought to be made is that it is the everyday men and women in this country, many of whom have never seen the inside of a university, whose taxes and hard work—while they are trying to feed their children and pay off their car loans and mortgages—are underwriting three-quarters of the cost of university education in this country. The average male university graduate earns $612,000 more over a lifetime than someone who does not go to university and a female graduate earns more than $400,000. As far as I am concerned, university education is a pretty good deal.596815:13:005968Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. I ask the minister: what action is the federal government taking to expand the availability of affordable public liability insurance? Is there any reason why small businesses in my electorate of Flinders and in Victoria more generally should miss out on public liability cover?5968Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I thank the member for Flinders for his contribution to this debate. He follows a very rich line of very good members from Flinders over the years. According to a recent accountants survey, two-thirds of Australia's small businesses see a lack of insurance cover as their biggest business risk. We, on this side of the House, support the view of small business and the community that people should take responsibility for their own actions. That is why we have put in place tax changes on structured settlements and amendments to the Trade Practices Act, which are being debated at the moment. Overwhelming responsibility for tort law reform rests with the states.I can advise the House that, as a result of national reforms, Suncorp GIO has announced that it is going back into the business of comprehensive public liability insurance. ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—That is good news.DK6Mr HOCKEY—It is good news. All small businesses, tourism operators and community groups will welcome this announcement. Suncorp Group Executive, John Trowbridge—a pretty good guy and well respected—said:The reforms will lead to a reduction in costs in the public liability system, and this gives us an opportunity to make public liability insurance available at reasonable prices to more consumers.Consumers will welcome this announcement—all consumers except for five million Victorians, who are going to miss out. That is because Suncorp is not going to offer these new products and services to Victorians, because Victoria is the only state in Australia that has done nothing on public liability reform. The Chief Executive of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce said: The Victorian government has avoided introducing reforms to civil liability payouts and as a consequence Victorian business will suffer. Suncorp has confirmed it will not be making public liability policies available in Victoria for a range of industries.So what is Mr Bracks going to say to the Ace-Hi Ranch at Cape Schank in the electorate of Flinders? What is Mr Bracks going to say to the Hard Rock Climbing Co. in the electorate of Deakin? What is he going to say to the Ozone Hotel, in the electorate of Corangamite, when they have to pay insurance premiums far higher than those paid by anyone in New South Wales, South Australia or other parts of Australia? It may have something to do with the close working relationship between Rob Hulls, the Labor Attorney-General in Victoria, and the Plaintiff Lawyers Association. Government members interjecting—Oh!DK6Mr HOCKEY—More to come there! That is a rainy day issue, that one! Or it could have something to do with the fact that Victoria has the highest state taxes on insurance of any jurisdiction in the whole world. So why would Steve Bracks want to introduce competition into the Victorian insurance market and reduce premiums when, for every dollar in premium that is charged, Steve Bracks receives nearly 40c in taxes? Or it might just have something to do with the fact that Steve Bracks leads a government that does nothing and, like all the rest of the Labor Party, cares nothing for small business. 596915:18:005969Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Isn't it true that university contributions paid by Australian students, through HECS, have increased by 85 per cent under your government in just six years and that, as a result, Australian students now pay some of the highest public university contributions in the world? Given this, why doesn't your review consider funding options other than making students and their families pay even higher fees?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order!VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—There is more!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Bruce is warned!5969Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thought you were supposed to be surprised by questions from the opposition. As I said in answer to an earlier question, we have been conducting a review, and there are difficult challenges facing Australian higher education, prospective students and their families, and there are choices that we have to make as a nation. There are decisions that have to made as a nation which rise above the day-to-day political debate that comes from the Labor Party. The Labor Party is yet to make any kind of meaningful contribution to Australian higher education reform.In relation to students and graduates, the first thing that ought to be pointed out is that the Australian Graduate Starting Salaries report was released last week, and it found that the average bachelor's degree university graduate now earns, in his or her first year after graduation, $35,000—which is an increase of $2,000 on last year. That is 86 per cent of the average Australian earnings. That means, even if you go down towards the bottom of the list, to the 23rd occupation, that almost every university graduate earns more in his or her first year after graduation than their entire HECS debt. I was tuned into MIX 94.5 a few days ago—Government members interjecting—RW5Dr NELSON—As you certainly would, because there are a lot hardworking taxpayers out there who are supporting university education. I heard the well-known commentator and financial adviser, Mr Paul Clitheroe say:If you are looking for an asset worth investing in, take a look in the mirror. It is easy to forget that when it comes to increasing your wealth, the best asset you have is your own ability to earn a good income. That is why spending some time and money taking on additional training and education can be one of the best investments that you will ever make.He went on to say:Research has shown that, over the course of a lifetime, a university graduate will earn almost 60 per cent more than a school leaver. And that is despite graduates starting work later and having a HECS bill to pay off. Another thing that needs to be pointed out is that the level of debt undertaken by students is not increased to that extent, but the number of students in Australian universities has increased and the amount of money that Australian taxpayers are lending to those students has increased; it is now $8.2 billion, as of the end of June this year. The loan is indexed in relation to the consumer price index, there is a discount for up-front payment, there is a discount for part-payments, and there is a remission and write-down rate.As far as the policy of the Australian Labor Party is concerned, we know three things: the first is that the member for Jagajaga was reported in the Australian on 6 March as saying that she saw unmet demand—qualified students who do not get a place—as a `shocking waste'. She thought at the time that the number was 52,500, and she thought that was a shocking waste. The minimum cost of funding that from the public purse would be $640 million.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—It is a shocking waste. What's your cut?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Jagajaga will observe standing order 55.RW5Dr NELSON—The next thing the Labor Party said it wanted to do was to increase from $23,242 a year to $25,000 the income threshold at which students start paying back the money—a minimum cost of $266 million over four years. She has also said that no Australian student should be offered the same opportunities as students from Beijing or Jakarta, who can take up a full fee-paying place in an Australian university once the public ones are filled. That would cost a minimum of $70 million a year.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the members on this side have to adhere to the standing orders, could the minister adhere to the standing orders and refer to members by their electorate?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat. Has the minister concluded his answer?RW5Dr NELSON—Yes.597015:24:005970Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House how Liberal-National government policies are creating new opportunities for exports in the services sector, such as education? How does this contribute to creating employment opportunities?5970Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question, which is quite relevant given the current debate. Australia's exports of services and manufactured goods have risen by more than 50 per cent over the course of this government's time in office, from $99 billion in 1996 to $154 billion last year, generating one in five jobs across Australia and—importantly for the interests of the member for Herbert—one in four jobs in regional Australia.As a component of that, services exports achieved a level of $31 billion last year. That was an increase from $24 billion in 1996. Obviously the tourism industry is the largest contributor to that sector, achieving $17 billion last year compared with $14.6 billion in 1996. Interestingly, education is the fastest growing services export and is now worth more than $4 billion a year. In 1996, it earned only $2.8 billion. There are now 188,000 overseas students enrolled in Australian education and training. That has grown by 66,000 students since 1995. Those students are studying at Australian institutions both onshore and offshore. This sector is absolutely focused on growing its export earnings for the Australian economy. For the benefit of the member for Herbert, in the marine biology and aquaculture program at the James Cook University, which is in his electorate, almost 35 per cent of the students are overseas students. In the electorate of the member for Cunningham, who is not here at this stage—we expect there will be a new member for Cunningham in the not too distant future—4,400 students out of 15,000 students at the University of Wollongong are international students and come from more than 70 countries. Most importantly, the University of New South Wales has been a consistent performer as far as export earnings are concerned. It is a member of the Exporter Hall of Fame. It is ranked in the top 10 universities in the Asian region. The University of New South Wales has achieved that four years in a row. It has 8,200 international students.In a press release that was published when they won that award, there was an indication of the level of standing of the University of New South Wales internationally. After winning the IDP Education Australia education award at the 2000 Australian export awards, the University of New South Wales is building a reputation globally for attracting top quality international students ahead of prestigious education institutions like Oxford, Harvard and Yale universities. It is proof positive that our services sector is making its contribution to the export growth and the wellbeing of our economy. In particular, the education sector in Australia is creating a significant standing internationally and earning much needed export dollars for Australia. Those who participate in managing the tertiary education sector, particularly in an export sense, absolutely support the policies and the perspective of the government in developing that education base in Australia, so they can achieve the export earnings we want to see them achieve in the future.597115:28:005971Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, how does your government propose to honour its commitment to provide free treatment to veterans for their war-caused injuries and illnesses as well as to war widows? Minister, are you calling the bluff of the specialists who have threatened to boycott the gold card, or are you happy to stand by and see our veterans and war widows charged for their health care?5971Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the honourable member for his question. There is an overwhelming majority of doctors who continue to accept the repatriation gold card for veteran patients. This is yet another easy scare campaign from the Labor Party, which is more interested in scoring very cheap political points than honestly representing the interests of the veteran community. Many in the veteran community happen to be some of our more senior Australians. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is very simple: the minister reflected on the member, who is a war veteran.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley has just raised a point of order that bears no relevance to the question at all. If the member's statement was a reflection on anybody, it was a reflection on the Labor Party. The minister is in order.VK6Mrs VALE—For the benefit of all members here who are interested in this important matter, I would like to read some of the correspondence from and media reporting of prominent members of the ex-service community. Firstly, I will read part of a letter from the much respected June Healey, who is the President of the War Widows Guild of Australia. Mrs Healey has written to me, saying:Mark Bishop's media release [on the extent of specialists refusing to treat veterans on the gold card] tends to inflame the situation.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order goes to relevance. My question to the minister asked about those veterans who are not getting access to the health care that they deserve.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I was listening closely to what the minister said. I presume she was going to reflect on people who had talked about the access that people have to the gold card or at least to the way in which specialists are servicing members who have access to the gold card. I wonder whether the minister would be assisted if the microphone were a little lower, Prime Minister, so that she can be heard more clearly.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—I will do anything I can to have it broadcast.VK6Mrs VALE—Secondly, I quote from Mr John Ryan, who is the President of the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-Servicemen and Women Limited and a fearless advocate for veterans rights. He was reported in the West Australian newspaper as saying the problem was not serious. Mr Brian McKenzie, National President of the highly regarded Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, in response to a question on the seriousness of the problem, said to ABC Hobart:I haven't had any reports. There have been some isolated cases, Australia-wide. I've got tabs on things nationally, but I do not think it is as big as what it is being made out to be.These are just some of the examples of veteran representatives exposing the exaggerated claims of Senator Bishop and the Labor Party and the unnecessary fear being spread in the veteran community by Labor's insensitive and irresponsible opportunism.The government is aware that some medical specialists are unhappy with the level of fees for services to the veteran community. My department, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, is currently discussing the matter with the Australian Medical Association. During these discussions, it would not be prudent of me to comment further. However, the government will not be blackmailed by Labor's unscrupulous and irresponsible tactics on this matter. Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley!VK6Mrs VALE—I say this quietly—ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane!VK6Mrs VALE—Labor should be supporting the veterans—7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the Chief Opposition Whip! VK6Mrs VALE—Labor should be supporting the veterans not the doctors in these discussions. As Dr Tim Woodruff, President of the Doctors Reform Society, said in the Sunday Times:It is not appropriate to use the withdrawal of services as the bargaining chip to increase remuneration to specialists.The majority of GPs and specialists in Australia continue to honour the gold card, and our discussions with the AMA will continue. In the meantime, if any veteran is having any difficulty at all in being treated by a specialist, please contact my department because they will arrange an alternative.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker5972597215:34:005972Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I ask that the minister table the documents from which she was extensively quoting.5972SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Was the minister quoting from confidential documents?PE4Beazley, Kim, MP5972SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yes, I am conscious of the point raised by the member for Brand, and I will check the Hansard record.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is about the interrogation you just conducted with the minister. As I recollect it, when I came into this place for the first time and there were some of your Liberal predecessors in the chair, the normal way a request for the tabling of a document was conducted was that the starting point of the interrogation was: is the minister quoting from a document? The minister would reply as to whether or not they were quoting from a document, then the Speaker would ask the minister to table the document. The minister would then respond, `I can't do that, Mr Speaker, because the document is confidential to me.' The conduct of the chair in those days in utilising their position was—as I am sure you would appreciate, because you agree with this yourself—to progress the opportunity for parliamentarians to have full access to information rather than placing a minister in a situation where a minister is given a ready answer. Mr Speaker, I raise that point with you again as to whether or not it might be possible to return to the former process of interrogation of ministers on documents.5972SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I take the point raised by the member for Brand, as it has been raised on one previous occasion. I believe that both he and I are in error, in that the member for Brand's recollection is that the process was that the minister was asked if he or she were quoting from a document. My recollection of the question from the member for Brand is that it was: is the minister quoting from a document? And then the next question was: is the document confidential? Nonetheless, the member for Brand makes a point that I had conceded, I think two months ago, and I was aware when I asked the minister today that I had not returned to the process that I had indicated to him. I am nonetheless confident that, far from inviting the minister to give a positive response, the opportunity was there for the minister to respond honourably, no matter how the question was framed. But I will endeavour to return to the practice of previous speakers.597215:37:005972O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Mr Speaker, could I draw your attention to the flagrant violations of standing order 59 by particular ministers who turn their back on you and fail to address their comments through the chair. They might be so weak-kneed that they do not want to face the opposition—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Corio will either address this matter civilly or return to his seat.WU5Mr GAVAN O'CONNOR—I will address it civilly, Mr Speaker. On many occasions in question time many members on this side of the House could have drawn attention to this violation of standing orders. I would ask that, in future, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, particularly, and the Minister for Employment Services address their comments through the chair.5973SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I would remind the member for Corio that, if I were to indicate ministers who in fact do not look at me when they are addressing the chamber, neither of the ministers he nominated would be at the top of the list. Standing order 59 does not require ministers to gaze into my eyes while addressing the chamber.AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr Quick—Malcolm used to do that to Snedden, because he hated him.10000The SPEAKER—If members actually want a serious answer, they might at least exercise the courtesy of hearing me out. What it does require members to do is address their remarks through the chair. What I have persistently endeavoured to do, as have all members of the Speaker's panel, is to remind all members that their remarks should be addressed through the chair, effectively depersonalising them—an issue raised by the member for Prospect yesterday. Clearly, I would prefer members not to have their backs to me when they are addressing the chamber, but there is no standing order that requires them to take a particular stance, simply that their remarks must be addressed through the chair. 597315:39:005973Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—My question is to you, Mr Speaker. In August 2001 the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade released a report Australia's relations with the Middle East. This was tabled in the parliament on 20 September 2001. I would request that you please write to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as it is now nearly 12 months since that report was tabled, asking if this parliament is going to see the government's response to that very detailed report.5973SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the Chief Opposition Whip as the standing orders provide.597315:40:005973Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, I wonder if you would write to the responsible ministers in relation to question on notice No. 598 to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and question on notice No. 599 to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.5973SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up those matters under standing order 150 as the standing orders provide.Documents5973Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.41 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:Commonwealth Grants Commission—Report on Jervis Bay Territory 2002 (25 July 2002 / 2 August 2002)Reserve Bank Of Australia—Reserve Bank of Australia—Annual Report 2002—section 9 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. (23 August 2002 / 23 August 2002)Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned:Matters of Public Importance5973597310000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Howard Government to embrace the opportunities for jobs and prosperity which will flow from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.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—15:41:005974Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Johannesburg Earth Summit commences in the next few days, and high on the agenda is climate change. Ironically, Australia has been given responsibility for drafting the climate change text, yet the government has sent no representative from the Greenhouse Office to the Johannesburg Earth Summit. Given the government's attitude towards the signing of the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, it is a little like giving the previous Bulldogs management responsibility for drafting the rules governing the National Rugby League's salary cap.It has been the hope and expectation since the first earth summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro that a climate change convention would come into force at the summit's 10th anniversary, and the Johannesburg Earth Summit is in fact the 10th anniversary. In the late 1990s—1997-98—the Kyoto protocol on climate change was settled, and the government boasted at the time that it was a good result for Australia. I refer to comments from the Prime Minister, who said that it was a successful outcome. He said:Despite a marked lack of support—despite, indeed, being labelled an international pariah by some of our domestic critics—we held to the line, and with persistent reasoned argument achieved an outcome very much in Australia's best interests.The Prime Minister was describing the Kyoto protocol as being very much in Australia's best interests. The then environment minister, Senator Robert Hill, said:Australia did not get a free ride in Kyoto. We argued for and obtained a challenging but realistic target which was both environmentally and economically responsible.Today's signing will again send a strong signal to the international community that Australia is prepared to accept a fair share of the burden.In fact, Australia did get a very generous target out of that process. Our target was an eight per cent increase in greenhouse emissions, beyond the 1990 levels, by the end of this decade. Only one other country was allowed an increase, and that was Iceland, with an increase of one per cent. All the other countries at the Kyoto protocol negotiations accepted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of this decade, compared with 1990. Australia was not only allowed an increase but was able to get a further concession—that is, it got land use change counted towards greenhouse gas emissions. If you grow trees or slow down the rate of land clearing, you get a greater prevalence of carbon sinks, and Australia stood to gain very substantially as a result of that, given its record on land clearing.Australia did well out of it. It was acknowledged by the Prime Minister and the environment minister at that time. Since that time 86 countries have ratified the Kyoto protocol. Only Russia and Canada need to ratify it, and then it will come into force. It is fully expected that the Kyoto protocol will come into force by the end of this year. When the government says to the Australian people that it does not want to ratify the Kyoto protocol it invariably refers to China and says that China is a big emitter of greenhouse gases and it is not interested in ratifying that protocol. In a statement on 22 August, just a few days ago, it was revealed that China is close to approving the Kyoto climate pact and that the state council, China's cabinet, is putting the finishing touches on approving the treaty. The state council has approved a plan to spend nearly $US8 billion to clean up pollution and enact strict control targets by 2005. We have China saying, `We're going into the tent; we are going to join the club,' but still Australia is saying, `We are not going to do so.' The Prime Minister picked World Environment Day to make the statement that Australia would not ratify the Kyoto protocol. On World Environment Day the Prime Minister stated: ... for us to ratify the protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry.He was not the only one in on the act. My counterpart, the resources and industry minister, Ian Macfarlane, said:... industry and jobs would suffer if Australia ratified the protocol in its current form. Just a couple of weeks ago an inventory was released on where we are in respect of our target. It was revealed that by 2010, the end of the decade, on current settings we will be only 11 per cent above the target set for us. It would be a very easy task to go to eight per cent above. You would think that it would be within the capacity of this government to engineer such a modest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This government refuses to join the club of 86 countries that have already agreed to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It is a little bit like Groucho Marx who said, `I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.' That is what the government is saying—I do not want to belong to the club, the club of countries that have ratified the Kyoto protocol, because they might accept us a member. The government is doing this for purely political reasons. It has nothing to do with protecting jobs. As I will outline, it has everything to do with costing jobs in innovative new industries in which Australia is showing a strong competitive advantage. There is a litany of examples of those industries going overseas and costing Australian jobs because this government is saying that it will not join a club that will have it as a member. It is doing that for purely political reasons. It is all part of its hard man image. It has a hard man image in relation to asylum seekers. It has a hard man image in relation to getting stuck into international organisations and agreements. The hard men of the Right do not want to rub shoulders with the goodie-two-shoe countries, as far as they are concerned, that are trying to do the right thing and that are trying to do something about limiting global greenhouse gas emissions. The environment minister is a self-professed member of the New Right. You might recall that he defeated in preselection the then member for Goldstein, Mr Ian Macphee, who, I seem to recall, was one of those who crossed the floor in the Asian immigration debate and voted with Labor. Mr Macphee, the then member for Goldstein, paid a very high price for that because he was described as a wet and a progressive. It was the current environment minister, one of the hard men of the New Right, along with Treasurer Costello—they came in around the same time—who knocked off the progressive, who knocked off the wet. That is part of the political equation here. We also have in the equation the foreign minister and his laughable bid to become deputy leader of the Liberal Party. He is obviously trying to live down his earlier reputation for wearing fish-net stockings and caftans and also his wetness in the party room in relation to the International Criminal Court. We have seen him trying to live that down with his Rambo rhetoric on Iraq. We are now seeing him trying to live down that wet image, that progressive image—progressive is one word for it; fish-net stockings and so on—by joining with the Prime Minister in indicating that the government will not be ratifying the Kyoto protocol. By the year's end more than 90 countries will be in the club that this government refuses to join. More than 90 countries around the world, importantly for job opportunities for Australians, will be trading in greenhouse gas emission credits. These are very valuable credits for activities that result in the moderation or reduction in greenhouse gas emission. They give credits to countries that grow trees and countries that slow down the rate of land clearing. SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—The minister opposite is in favour of unrestrained land clearing in Queensland, unrestrained land clearing around Australia, because it is all part of the hard Right, macho image. Enormous job opportunities are being sacrificed in Australia on the altar of some sort of political expedience to position this government as the hard men of the Right. It is not a question of jobs versus the environment; it is a question of jobs for the environment, which is what Labor says. We see great opportunities here but the government is locking industry out of lucrative markets for emission credits. As a result, countless job opportunities will be squandered. My colleague the member for Melbourne Ports will take this House through just a few examples in the last few months of companies which have indicated that they will have to go overseas because Australia will not be part of an emissions trading regime. Because Australia will not be part of an emissions trading regime the credits will not be counted. We will not be part of this market. As a result terrific new enterprises in this country are being forced overseas. I want to spend a moment on one example of this. EnviroStar Energy had to write to the Australian Stock Exchange just a few days ago on 22 August. What had EnviroStar Energy been trying to do? It was entering into a joint venture for a coal gasification project in China, which would have seen China reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. I think everyone here would think it is a pretty good idea to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in China—the very country about which the government says, `We're not going to ratify this protocol because China is not.' I have already indicated that China is saying that they will ratify the protocol. So here is a business that enters into a joint venture arrangement to achieve good environmental outcomes in China. I will just quote a couple of sections from this dismal, dispiriting story. In the letter it says:EnviroStar had been working for three years in cooperation with the International Greenhouse Partnership Office, part of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, to deliver China's first municipal coal gasification system upgrade as a clean development mechanism project under the provisions of article 12 of the Kyoto protocol. Then it says:Subsequent to the Prime Minister's announcement, EEL has received advice from the EU that the credits from the project were now not saleable due to the project sponsor being an Australian entity.This project is the first of a potential 1,100 such coal gasification projects in China. The letter goes on to say:The refusal of the Prime Minister to sign the Kyoto protocol has a major impact on the bankability of a project under the ownership/stewardship of an Australian publicly listed company. So the EnviroStar board has been advised that it has been unable to complete a bankable term sheet for the project due to the Australian government walking away from the Kyoto protocol. AERC advised the EnviroStar board that the project will need to be restructured with new documentation to convert it into a European sponsored project. Australian technology and jobs are being lost to Europe because of the pig-headedness of the Prime Minister and his political manoeuvring and positioning. This is costing jobs in Australia every day. If you follow the press, in the Australian Financial Review, almost every day you will see examples of companies that are saying they have no choice but to go overseas, to Europe or other countries, that are agreeing to ratify the Kyoto protocol so that they might be able to innovate there. What signal is this sending to Australia and the Australian community? That this government is not interested in innovation, it is not interested in environmentally friendly technologies, it is not interested in a clean environment, it is not interested in playing its part in the global challenge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.I will mention one other example. The Leader of the Opposition and I visited BP Solar in Sydney. There are as many jobs in the solar activities of BP in Sydney as BP has in petrol refining in Australia. You think: well, that is a pretty good thing, that is pretty encouraging. But they advised us that they have lost a contract, to sell solar cells to the Philippines, to their affiliate in Spain because, of course, Spain is signing the protocol and Australia is not. The government just does not care about that. The most ridiculous thing about this is that the government says, `We will reach the targets'—and it will, based on the latest inventory—`but we are not going to sign the protocol.' In other words, it is a policy of all pain, no gain. That is the attitude of this government. It is a massive setback for innovative Australian businesses and exporters. Why? I know the reason because I participated in a conference with their pollster Mark Textor, who says, `This might not be very popular, Mr Prime Minister.' It will be under Labor and the leadership of Simon Crean that we ratify the protocol. We will show true leadership in Australia and in international forums, because only Labor shows true leadership in this country. (Time expired)15:56:005976Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—It is extraordinary that we have just had a speech from the member for Rankin where he spent a third of the speech going on about hard Left, soft Right—it sounded a bit like a chocolate box—and imagined conversations in the party room, which indicated how little he has to say about Australia's world leading activity when it comes to taking on our responsibility for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. It is recognised internationally that we took a leading role in trying to develop a protocol at Kyoto which would deliver a significant emission reduction—the sort of reduction which would have some impact on the human induced climate change. It is very interesting to note that the 86 countries—at last count—that have now ratified Kyoto represent less than one-third of the total greenhouse gas emissions internationally—just one-third. If all of the signed-up commitments were delivered on time, that would represent a reduction of less than one per cent in greenhouse gas emissions. Labor might imagine fondly that signing a bit of paper delivers results. With treaties, it is interesting that former Prime Minister Keating was very keen on signing bits of paper and not even talking about them, but here we have Labor imagining that all you have to do is sign the Kyoto piece of paper and all will be well with greenhouse gas emissions globally.We worked very hard with the Kyoto protocol development, with our minister Robert Hill taking a leading role—as was acknowledged by the member for Rankin—in putting vegetation into the equation. Unfortunately, the member for Rankin did not quite understand carbon sequestration; he seemed to have some problem with that. The reason Australia was most anxious to make vegetation clearing and management and the thickening of vegetation a part of the carbon accounting system was that we understood that, if you continue clearing and burning at the rate many countries are doing—including our own—you will see continued greenhouse gas emissions which are going to affect our climates. We understood the importance of vegetation; unlike European countries that had very little scope to put vegetation back into the landscape, Australia made sure it was there, in the protocol.While Australia has not signed the Kyoto protocol, we will in fact be within three per cent of the target we negotiated at Kyoto, which was to limit emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels and to achieve that between 2008 and 2012. Again, the member for Rankin did not quite understand that that is a significant call on the Australian economy, given that `business as usual' would have produced emissions some 30 per cent above those 1990 emission levels.We are on track with our domestic changes as a result of the stimulation of innovation and enterprise that our $1 billion investment in the Australian Greenhouse Office has produced. We have done this without sacrificing a single job. We did not close down the Latrobe Valley; we did not go to our stationary energy sector, which is almost totally dependent on coal, and say: `Your game's over. Pack up your bags.' Instead, we acknowledged and recognised that our economy has grown strong over the first 215 years based on fossil fuel and coal-fired energy. So we said, `How can we absolutely commit to our domestic and international greenhouse obligations but at the same time not cripple our economy and not take away our competitive advantage—not see jobs exported to developing countries without the sorts of restraints and constraints that the Kyoto protocol might have brought in at the earliest instances?' We have done the work without sacrificing a single job—in fact, with the creation of many new jobs—whilst maintaining the fastest growing economy in the developed world. Labor does not like that. This is the opposition which has poured scorn on the 400,000 volunteers working under the Natural Heritage Trust, which has said that the work that those 400,000 volunteers are doing in protecting our biodiversity and our water and soil quality is a complete waste of time. It is the opposition which has never once talked about the efforts of Green Corps—that $88 million best training ground Australia has ever seen for young people to participate in our work on sustainability issues like reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In 13 years, the Labor Party did not produce one national environment protection measure—in fact, it opposed the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill. So I can understand why, in this MPI today, we have this nonsense being spoken by the member for Rankin, trying to suggest that somehow Australia has not been leading the world in its commitment and in its outcomes in climate change work.We are most concerned that at the moment you can stand right outside the Kyoto protocol if you are a developing country. Of course, we know that in the future it will be the emissions from the developing countries that will be a problem. We are also concerned that you can be a western European nation and can simply buy hot air from Russia as a trade-off while you continue to have the same regime, the same industrial activity, the same levels of emissions as you had before. We do not think that is too smart. In our country we have said, `We will deliver. We will aim in every way to deliver according to our agreed emissions standards—108 per cent of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.'We were the first nation to introduce a National Greenhouse Office. We committed $1 billion to that office. Let me tell you about the sorts of things that we did. We said we could not do this by regulation alone—that we could not achieve our objectives simply with sticks. We said we had to bring the Australian business sector, Australian men and women in their households and local government with us in this activity that is absolutely essential to meet our domestic and international obligations. So we introduced the mandatory renewable energy target—again, a first in the world—creating a national renewable energy market backed by legislation. This market, we believe, will deliver enough renewable electricity per year by 2010 to meet the residential electricity needs of four million people—for a population about the size of Sydney. We established the $400 million Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, and that is expected to deliver total savings equivalent to the annual emissions of over two million cars. This program targets opportunities for large-scale, cost-effective and sustained abatement from a range of sectors. We have put $460 million into grants related programs to provide and encourage commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy and alternative fuels. I do not know if the member for Rankin has been noticing, but there is a lot of discussion now about using ethanol and canola in biofuels. We need to have right now that very important debate on renewable fuel standards. The Greenhouse Challenge program includes over 700 businesses and industry bodies in greenhouse action. The members are reporting to us significant annual savings already. We have so many coming to us now—the Master Builders Association and the Master Plumbers of Australia—as the result of this early work, saying, `Look at our plans; look at how we are building capacity in our industry.' So we are not now simply orienting houses towards the sun with the idea of putting in refrigerated airconditioning and expecting that the energy will be there in the way it has been in the past; we are looking to solar, wind and tidal power and giving incentives to develop those sorts of alternatives.The national carbon accounting system has already been acknowledged by NASA to be a world best. It is the first national carbon accounting system to be developed in any country. It documents for us exactly what our vegetation thickening and extent was at the baseline year and it enables us to check year by year just what has happened. We are the first country to develop such an accounting system. The member for Rankin obviously does not realise that there is no international carbon trading system in place as we speak. So there is no loss of opportunity. There is in fact, in the case of Australia, more tree-planting, more activity associated with carbon sequestration than in any other country that also acknowledges that it has a problem.We have the greenhouse friendly certification program which enables companies, and local government, to obtain certificates for products or services with greenhouse emissions that have been fully offset by greenhouse abatement activities. I said before that Australia does not simply say that we will do this with sanctions, with sticks; we understand that we have to change the culture of energy use and the way we live our lives in this country. That requires every level of government—local, state and national—to embrace this cause. So I think we should be very proud that our Cities for Climate Change Protection program is the most successful in the world in that over 150 local governments representing 60 per cent of Australia's population have embraced it. That is the fastest uptake by any set of local governments anywhere in the world of this international program. And the member for Rankin suggests that our country is somehow hanging loose, that we are not taking our obligations seriously. All of this is happening because of our government's commitment, investment and engagement.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—All pain no gain. EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONE—All pain no gain, says the member for Rankin. You should go and talk to industry which has looked very seriously at what it does. Our industries have had some of the cheapest fuel and cheapest stationary energy in the world, but they have been required to work differently. I find that statement quite extraordinary. I hope that people listening out there really tuned into that incredible statement. We have already had some remarkable outcomes from some of our traditional industries. I can quote the aluminium industry. It has already reduced greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of output by 45 per cent since 1990. The mining industry is developing clean coal technology. It aims—and it looks like it is on target—to produce zero emissions within 10 years. These are just two examples of industries in Australia that the Labor policy would have driven out of this country. You would have shut down the aluminium industry in this country. You were suggesting that our country should have been first cab off the rank before there were international systems in place, when there were still highly fluid arrangements in terms of industry location. In Australia we have in fact developed an outcome that has been win-win. We have gone further than anyone. We were concerned that the United States was not engaging in the Kyoto protocol. As the United States represents 25 per cent of emissions globally, and as Australia is one of the highest individual per capita emitters of greenhouse gas in the world, we agreed to a formal association and work program with the United States. This has operated since 9 July this year. It looks at science and monitoring, especially climate system models, to make sure that we understand what is going on. It looks at stationary energy technologies and business technology development, and it helps to establish business-to-business relationships between our countries, and it also looks for collaboration with developing countries to build their capacities to address climate change.Recently I went to SPREP, the South Pacific Regional Environment Program meeting, to look at, amongst other things, how we can assist South Pacific countries deal with issues like climate change. The United States representatives were also there. Together we talked about how, in collaboration, we can assist those who are very vulnerable to the impacts of human induced climate change. I am very proud of what our country has done. I know our business sector is, and it said so recently in its meeting with our minister, Minister Kemp, and with the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. We are looked upon internationally as a model, and I am very proud of that. (Time expired)16:11:005979Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Prague and Dresden are flooded. The Aral Sea is now a desert. An identifiable cloud of brown smog now hangs over East Asia. What better time for a serious evaluation of the environment is there than at the conference being undertaken now in Johannesburg, South Africa? My colleague the member for Wills is there with 50 people representing Australia at the World Environment Conference. As the shadow minister outlined earlier in his remarks, it was hoped that the process from Rio to Kyoto and now to Johannesburg would produce a sensible process that the international community could agree on that might restore the environmental balance of our planet. Yet we have a conundrum of government inaction in Australia. After getting the international community to agree to Australian exceptionalism five years ago at Kyoto, we are now not to be part of an internationally agreed regime which will benefit the environment. With our technical expertise, we might have had the leverage to take economic advantage of in the inevitable trade in carbon credits which must come when the Kyoto arrangements fall into place. As the member for Rankin said, sufficient countries will soon have agreed to Kyoto and that is likely to take place soon with Russia, Canada and even China signing on to the Kyoto regime.Following the Kyoto summit the Prime Minister said that there was a successful outcome to the Kyoto conference and went on to say:Despite a marked a lack of support—despite indeed, being labelled an international pariah by some of our domestic critics—we held to the line, and with persistent reasoned argument achieved an outcome very much in Australia's best interests.We were able to achieve an agreement that Australia would be eight per cent over the limit and a clause for particularly Australia which incorporated land clearing—that is, what Australia would undertake if it signed on to the Kyoto accord. The Prime Minister's rhetoric seems to have been overblown. If it was in Australia's best interests, why has the Prime Minister constantly said that we will meet the targets but not ratify Kyoto? By not ratifying Kyoto Australia will miss out on business opportunities which will mean less investment in Australia and fewer jobs for Australians as these companies move offshore. As the member for Rankin said, I am going to outline a few examples of companies that are being adversely affected by our failure to become part of this global carbon trading market. A $130 million, 40,000 hectare eucalypt plantation in Casino in New South Wales is unlikely to proceed without Australia signing up to the Kyoto protocol. The member for Rankin mentioned EnviroStar Energy, an Australian company developing a coal gasification system, which is unlikely to proceed unless we sign up to Kyoto. Global Renewables Ltd, an Australian company which has a joint venture with the Asian Environmental Rehabilitation Corporation, has signed a contract with China to operate the waste management of Taizhou city, a city of five million people. The project will generate $200 million within three years and $187 million worth of carbon credits by 2012. The GRL managing director has said:We are being forced to relocate to Europe in order to get the revenue streams created by access to a global market of carbon credits. China needs at least 1,000 projects like ours, so we can't afford to jeopardize our position by forgoing the revenue carbon credits will give us.Elsewhere, the director of the same company, John White, has said that the company is looking to transfer contracts, jobs and earnings to an offshore subsidiary in New Zealand. New Zealand has indicated it will ratify the Kyoto protocol. Advanced Energy Systems is also considering moving its operations offshore to supply goods and services for renewable energy projects in India. Managing director Stephen Phillips said: It means we will be employing more people in India or Europe rather than Australia, and other countries will reap the commercial benefits of the Australian government's investment in research and development.Rio Tinto's HIsmelt project could potentially earn carbon credits if plans go ahead with its deal to license steel-making technology to a Chinese partner. Under the Kyoto protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, developed countries can earn carbon credits for green technology deals. However, presumably, the HIsmelt project cannot take advantage of this if Australia does not ratify the Kyoto protocol. The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, Ian Macfarlane, has said of the HIsmelt project:The technology could potentially be utilised by steel makers world-wide, resulting in significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions related to global steel production.Ironically, the HIsmelt project recently received a $125 million incentive from the federal government's strategic investment program to ensure secure commercialisation and development of the technology in Kiwana. It would seem to me that ratification of the Kyoto protocol would present Australia with significant opportunities in new economy industries. Tackling climate change offers opportunities for new and existing industries. Changes resulting from emission abatement will result in new jobs and opportunities critical to establishing Australia as a new economy. The shadow minister for trade and industry has mentioned the example of BP already employing more in its solar factory than in all of its Australian oil refineries. One of the things we all look forward to is the cleaner use of fossil fuels, which would be part of Australia's future competitive advantage. Clean coal technology has enormous global export potential for this country.Australia stands to reap large rewards from the Kyoto protocol's flexibility mechanisms which allow for international emissions trading and emissions credit for actions taken in developing countries or in partnership with other nations under the protocol. In my view, under Kyoto, Australian companies might expand into new export markets, reduce environmental damage and earn credits for Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions account. But this is only if we sign up to the protocol.I will now turn to the Australian Greenhouse Office. Until the last election, this part of the Australian government was considered state of the art. It was involved in cementing the framework for the Kyoto protocol, including international carbon credit trading and monitoring the system for greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, some people would say that the Greenhouse Office has been at the cutting edge of the international accounting for carbon crediting. As part of its activities, the Greenhouse Office negotiated memoranda of understanding with many countries, such as Chile and Poland, for joint venture projects between countries which have ratified the protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and then split the carbon credits between the partners. The Greenhouse Office paid for environmental experts from developing economies to visit Australia and attend training courses on how to establish national monitoring schemes for greenhouse gas emissions—an essential component of the Kyoto protocol. This was done in order to prepare other countries for operating under the protocol using Australia's emissions monitoring systems as a world-class model.Until the last election, the Greenhouse Office was world's best practice, respected for its expertise in greenhouse policies and practices and for its commitment to achieving practical, effective results. The Greenhouse Office has worked hard, spent considerable public funds and achieved its goals. But, as the shadow minister said, it does not even have a representative at Johannesburg. The Greenhouse Office has been gagged and sidelined in this debate. Both the chief executive and the deputy CEO of the Greenhouse Office resigned many months ago and no effort has been made by the government to replace them. It reminds me very much of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and how it used to tour the very capable deputy CEO of Hong Kong around. Anson Chan's removal means DFAT no longer pursues the Australian government's announced policy of supporting one country, two systems in the HKFS. Anson Chan is no longer flavour of the month in Canberra, and no-one talks about her in the Australian government any more.What the Australian government has done to the Greenhouse Office is a shame. Having built up such expertise and proposals that would allow Australia to profit, quite literally, from the Kyoto protocol, the Howard government has locked its experts away, just as it is locking Australian business out of commercial opportunities created by the protocol. In fact, the Liberal government looks set to downgrade the Greenhouse Office after a review by former Liberal minister Warwick Smith—a capable but, as Nigel Hawthorne would describe him, `sound man; a man who is likely to deliver conclusions that the government is happy with'. He is expected to recommend that it was no longer necessary to maintain the office as an independent executive agency. As I said, the Greenhouse Office's future is in doubt several months after the former chief executive left.Whether at Johannesburg or elsewhere, the environmental regime outlined at Kyoto will be agreed to. You have heard today the evaluation from the shadow minister for trade and industry that Russia, China and Canada are just a short distance from signing on. It is not a matter, as the previous speaker said, of Labor imagining the benefit; we will not enjoy the benefits of carbon credits if we do not participate in this protocol. If it is agreed, we will be the only country with substantial interests that has been locked out. As the member for Rankin said, this is not a matter of jobs versus the environment; this is a matter of jobs and the environment. The government's behaviour on this protocol has been nothing short of disgraceful. (Time expired)16:22:005982Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—It is a pleasure to speak on this subject today. It is a little disappointing that the member for Rankin has approached this subject with name-calling and a series of unrelated comments about the subject before the parliament. This is a remarkably important issue not only for our nation but also for our globe, and we get the member for Rankin calling the environment minister and the foreign minister names and then rattling off a few cliches. Was that a substitute for analysis? Was that a substitute for intellectual rigour? At the end of the day the take-home message was, `Let's join the club.' That is the Labor Party policy. They have outsourced their intellectual capacity to anyone who wants to give them an argument; they have outsourced their thinking to Europe and they will just follow, hogtied by whatever Europe does, and hang the national interest.This is about a sectional agenda being put to this parliament today—and quite rightly, where that sectional interest is wishing to push its case. But that is not the only economic interest in this country. Those in the renewable energy marketplace and those presenting themselves as environmental technology providers have every right to come in and push their case. But only the Labor Party would blindly take up that section of the Australian economy and make that its entire policy position. We heard about issues such as trading in carbon credits. What a remarkable thing for someone with a Master of Economics to talk about. There is a supply and demand issue here. We need to engage the United States. On any analysis, the United States is likely to be the largest purchaser of carbon credits. If those on the opposite bench and those in Europe turn their back on the United States, they will be shutting down the biggest single market for the very commodity those here are seeking to pursue.If you do not have the United States involved you have an enormous impact on the value of those carbon credits, which has an enormous impact on the investment basis and which is why Australia has a role to continue to engage with the United States. Those people from financial houses around the country and those industry advocates who see a new market in the commodity of carbon credits—running around seeing a new business opportunity—are not terribly interested in the molecules. They are not so interested in the molecules that make the difference to the greenhouse condition; they are more interested in the economic opportunities this new challenge to the nation has to provide and more interested in seeing what they can take out of that system. So for the member for Rankin, with all his economic skills, to have that enormous blind spot and not see the connection between US engagement in this Kyoto framework and the market for, and therefore the value of, carbon credits just shows you how lazy and insignificant the Labor Party is in terms of its contributions to this debate.We talked about a couple of examples where the EU has decided that the way we play this issue of carbon credits and tackle the greenhouse challenge means we should not be able to participate in their game. The EU have their own agenda. They have their domestic spokesman here going around running the EU agenda. Just the other day we heard the shadow environment minister calling on our nation to get behind every other nation's initiative at Johannesburg. What is wrong with our initiatives? What is wrong with our efforts to see better management of not only our nation's marine environment but also the entire global marine environment? What about the agenda we are pushing? That was not of interest to the shadow minister; he just wanted to push the barrow of those from whom he receives advice. He has outsourced his views on these issues. We are running the European agenda and we have the agents of the European agenda in the Australian Labor Party—again, the party of sectional interest, the party just looking to pursue one part of the economy.It is not surprising that we heard the member for Rankin and the member for Melbourne Ports speak. There are other members in this place. There are the Lavoisier Group, those with coal interests, those with manufacturing interests, those who make cars—those from any other sector of the economy where energy matters. Were they speaking on this bill? Of course they were not, because they see a poorly structured international framework that disadvantages large segments of our economy where real humans are employed. They derive their standard of living, their income to support their families, from the rest of the economy that the member for Rankin chose to ignore. The member for Rankin talked about the opportunities for employment and economic growth out of industries that will ride on the back of the Kyoto protocol. The government is open to those industries and is facilitating investment in those sectors of the economy, but we are interested in the rest of the economy as well. That is the difficulty we face in this country when the Labor Party does not apply intellectual rigour to analyse these issues.I have just talked about carbon credits and how the whole question of their value is intrinsically related to who is participating. You have the Kyoto framework covering around 30 per cent of the emitters but three-quarters of the emitters are not participating. The member for Rankin—again showing ignorance of this subject, lack of rigour and lack of work to come up with decent policy—talked about China. If you were China, why wouldn't you be involved? When you sign on you have all the upsides and no responsibility. It reminds me of the story about bacon and eggs: the chicken is involved but, by golly, the pig is committed. That is what this is about.Without the discipline of a commitment, the Chinese and those developing countries can benefit from the entire framework but will not have to deliver a darn thing. What a great outcome! That is a monumental flaw in the design of the Kyoto protocol, and everybody knows it. Even the Europeans know it, but the European diplomats ponce around parts of the world saying, `Let's not talk about trade. We've decided we'll only talk about trade as it relates to climate change.' In the real world trade, climate change and the Kyoto protocol interconnect. The failure of the policy embodied in the Kyoto protocol to recognise that connection is its greatest flaw. Where are the incentives for the developing countries to participate? Even if all the countries that have signed the Kyoto protocol deliver, there will not be more than a one per cent change in greenhouse emissions across the globe—a poopteenth. It will make no difference whatsoever to the condition of the global environment. So, if we look forward to the Kyoto protocol, what is the value of it? The value of it is the hope that it is a step in the right direction and that the architecture it embodies will be useful down the track. Even the best experts recommend that we need a 30 per cent to 40 per cent reduction in emissions to have any impact whatsoever on the global climate. So, beyond the first accounting period—which, for the member for Rankin's edification, is 2008 and 2012—the serious business begins.The member for Melbourne Ports talked about doing something for the benefit of the environment. As it stands, the protocol does nothing for the environment. We need to make substantial reductions in emissions—30 per cent to 40 per cent—to have any impact on the environment whatsoever. So it is life after the first accounting period that matters. What are the commitments of nations going to be after 2008 and 2012? The Labor Party says, `Let's join the club.' We know it is a dud. All the economists around the world who look at not only the opportunities but also the costs of participating and of not participating recognise these flaws, and yet the master of economics, the member for Rankin, does not.Why would he pick it up? Let us have a look at his history. He was the economic and environment adviser to the Hawke government. Do you know what the saddest thing is, Mr Deputy Speaker? The saddest thing is that the greatest achievement Labor can point to on greenhouse gas abatement is that, in the years between 1990 and 1992, greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by eight per cent. Do you know how that was achieved? It ruined the economy. It ruined the economy through the recession we had to have, and that is how the Labor Party had its only achievement in greenhouse. It reduced emissions by eight per cent and it followed its old mates in Russia: `Let's shut down business. Let's throw people out onto the streets. Let's lift inflation. Let's make interest rates so unbearable that no-one can work.' That was the formula of the Labor Party and that was on the back of the economic advice from the member for Rankin.He ducked out of advising the Prime Minister and went to look after the environment department in Queensland. The greatest vandals in land clearing on the face of this continent are the Queensland government. Decent taxpayers around the country are being asked to pay to have the Queensland government do the right thing when it comes to land clearing. Guess who was the Director-General of the Department of the Environment? The member for Rankin. He has got form. No wonder he is trying to talk about things that could be done—his two great achievements are advising the Hawke government on how to ruin the economy, and achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because of it, and then being asleep at the wheel from 1990 to 1995 as Director-General of the Department of the Environment. With the biggest problem this nation faces—land clearing—he just looked the other way and said, `Do you know, guys, when I was advising the Prime Minister, we achieved a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and we put a million people out of work to do so.'This is about a forward agenda, and the government has one. It is engaging the Americans because, for this to matter, they have to turn up. It is trying to persuade developing countries, many of whom would benefit many times more than we would, on some of the measures in the policy. The greatest areas of land clearing are in South-East Asia and Latin America. They have great opportunities for carbon credits, but they are not participants. We have just got some of the developing countries to stop subsidising the burning of fossil fuel. Get on board. The government has got the right idea. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Committees59845984598416:32:005984Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following report: Report 390—Review of Auditor-General's reports 2001-2002: first, second and third quarters.Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's Report 390 on the following Auditor-General's reports: Administration of taxation rulings, Commonwealth estate property sales, Administration of the Federation Fund program and Personnel security—management of security clearances. This is our review of the Auditor-General's reports for the first, second and third quarters of 2001-02. Of the 38 audit reports reviewed, the committee selected four for further consideration. The committee held a public hearing on Friday, 31 May 2002, to discuss these ANAO reports with the relevant Commonwealth agencies. I will briefly discuss issues in each of the selected reports in turn.Audit report No. 3 focused on the operation of the Australian Taxation Office administration of taxation rulings. The audit found that the processes for the production of public rulings of high technical quality operated effectively overall but that the collection, analysis and use of performance information could be enhanced in some areas. The audit also noted that the administrative processes for private rulings had operated poorly in many respects. The committee acknowledges the complex taxation matters dealt with and the rigorous review and approval processes employed by the ATO in issuing its public rulings. The committee encourages the ATO to continue to improve its processes to enhance the clarity and content of public rulings. The committee considers that the ATO will have to monitor and assess the effectiveness and efficiency of procedures it has implemented to control the production of private binding rulings and to ensure their quality. Audit report No. 4 focused on the sale of nine properties in seven case studies, with a total value of $619 million, and considered whether the property sale represented value for money to the Commonwealth. While the committee accepts that the differing views of the ANAO and DOFA as to the effectiveness of the properties sale are derived from differing policy perspectives on the matter, greater attention should have been paid to providing the government with ongoing advice about the hurdle rate, especially as the economic factors were changing rapidly. In addition, DOFA should be considering the whole of life costs and benefits for each property to ensure that the Commonwealth achieves best value for money and that actions taken are in its best interests. The committee endorses the audit's suggestion that sale management better practices identified in Audit report No. 4 should be applied to future Commonwealth property sales, including to the forthcoming scheduled major sales at CSIRO and in the Defence portfolio.When examining ANAO's Report No. 30, 1999-2000 Examination of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects program, the committee made two recommendations regarding grant programs. In particular, the committee recommended that all applicants, successful or otherwise, should be notified of the decision as soon as possible in writing and that those who were unsuccessful should be advised of the relevant appeal processes and provided with guidance for improving subsequent applications.The committee was therefore concerned to find, when reviewing Audit report No. 11, Administration of the Federation Fund program, 2001-02, that the time gap between decisions and announcements in the major projects program varied markedly. Having reviewed the audit report and considered the evidence presented, the committee believes that the Federation Fund program would have been better managed from the start if a Commonwealth agency had been formally assigned a coordinating role and given monitoring responsibilities before applications were sought. Such coordination would have facilitated better sharing of experience and expertise across administering departments of the Federation Fund program.Audit report No. 22 reviewed a number of agencies to determine whether organisations were managing security clearance and vetting processes effectively and efficiently and in accordance with Commonwealth policy and the Protective Security Manual 2000. The audit found considerable scope for improvement. All but one of the organisations reviewed had a large number of security clearances overdue for review, few organisations had an up-to-date protective security risk management assessment and none had effectively integrated risk assessments into personnel security arrangements.The audit also found that effective information management systems were not in place to support personnel security in some organisations, and in most organisations insufficient resources were allocated to the personnel security function to maintain new clearance requirements as well as clearance reviews. The committee recommends that all agencies allocate the resources necessary to bring their security clearance processes in line with the requirements of the Protective Security Manual, and that all agencies make the necessary changes to the Human Resource Management Information System to support management reporting in relation to security clearances and appropriate access to security clearance information.I conclude by thanking, on behalf of the committee, the witnesses who contributed their time and expertise to the committee's review process. I am also indebted to my colleagues on the committee who dedicated their time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat involved in the inquiries. I commend the report to the House.16:38:005985Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—by leave—The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit Report 390—Review of Auditor-General's reports 2001-2002: first, second and third quarters is a review of four selected Auditor-General reports from the first three-quarters of 2001-02. Due to time restraints I will focus on one of them: the review of the ANAO report Personnel security—management of security clearances.Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, there has been a heightened awareness of potential vulnerabilities and the need to ensure our national security systems are adequate. Part of the efficacy of our national security systems depends on recognising the fact that there is an inherent risk in giving access to classified information. Threats to and breaches of our national security can occur if this inherent risk is not effectively controlled. Personnel security, including the security clearance process, is an essential element of controlling this risk and reducing an organisation's exposure to security breaches. The Auditor-General's report, for instance, drew attention to high profile espionage cases as visible reminders of the importance of personnel security. The Aldrich Ames case, in which a senior, long-term CIA employee had, undiscovered, engaged in espionage activity for nearly a decade, is a case in point.Mr Deputy Speaker, the Protective Security Manual issued in 2000 mandated for the first time minimum standards for security clearances across the Commonwealth. It outlined the procedures that organisations were required to follow to maintain an effective protective security framework. Importantly, the manual also reduced the life of a security clearance from 10 years to five. This enhanced the overall integrity of security clearances but also had the effect of increasing the number of re-evaluations. While the ANAO found some positives from its review—for example, established, albeit narrow, risk management frameworks within Commonwealth departments—most of the Commonwealth organisations reviewed were failing to effectively manage their security clearance processes. All but one had a large number of security clearances overdue for review. In particular, the Department of Defence advised the committee on 31 May that the number of staff due for re-evaluation had grown to 14,000. The ANAO notes that in one case around 50 per cent of all active top secret and secret clearances were estimated to be out of date. Given that the new PSM prescribes that secret, highly protected and top secret security clearances not re-evaluated within six years of the last vetting investigation will lapse, some organisations are facing a major challenge. I have to say that I was very surprised when a very sensitive agency, the National Crime Authority, had a backlog of 40 per cent in its security clearances. The fact is that within most departments and agencies there were insufficient resources allocated for the maintenance of new security clearances, not to mention reviews of existing clearances. It was evident to the committee that the problem is not the resources available to the departments and agencies at large, but rather that they were not allocating sufficient resources to deal with new and existing security evaluations. The Department of Defence acknowledged this to the committee, and I quote:It would be true to say that we have not in the past afforded [the backlog of evaluations] as high a priority as we might, but we are now doing so.The committee welcomed Defence's reprioritisation, and recommended that all Commonwealth bodies make it a high priority to allocate the necessary resources to reduce the security clearance backlog in order to avoid the inherent inefficiency of having staff unable to access crucial information.Mr Deputy Speaker, the ANAO also found that some of the Commonwealth departments and agencies reviewed were not able to accurately estimate the number of clearances overdue for re-evaluation because of shortcomings in their management information systems. The committee noted that this had a detrimental effect on their ability to efficiently manage their security re-evaluation processes, and recommended that all agencies make the improvements necessary to overcome the existing inadequacies of their Human Resource Management Information System. This recommendation has been made not only with the objective of reducing the security clearance backlog but also to improve the ease with which a staff member can determine a person's security clearance status.The ANAO also found that each of the Commonwealth departments and agencies reviewed accepted the principle of security clearance portability between organisations where, for example, a person meeting minimum security requirements in one department could transfer that clearance across to another department if the need arose, such as a change in employment. The committee recognises that this would seem to be an effective way to reduce delays and the overall cost of security clearances, particularly as there is a minimum Commonwealth benchmark currently in place that is universally applied to all Commonwealth organisations.While some organisations have checked the quality of clearances provided by other bodies and assessed whether the clearance meets the organisation's security standards, efficiency would suggest that more needs to be done to establish a central database containing information on an individual's security clearance status. It appears to the committee that it would be desirable to have a central coordinating agency responsible for the maintenance of security clearances, and it recommends that the Attorney-General's department report to the committee on the cost effectiveness of maintaining such a database. I commend the report to the House.16:45:005987Grierson, Sharon, MPMs GRIERSON00AMPNewcastleALP00—by leave—I take the opportunity to speak on this report, having been on the committee, in the absence of our deputy chair, the member for Sydney. As a new member of parliament, being on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit has been, for me, a very rewarding process. I think it is of particular interest for the public, because that committee actually scrutinises the allocation of funds to government departments, the accountability of government departments for the expenditure of those funds and their performance. In that way, each report is of great worth—this one particularly, because it deals with issues of importance in terms of, for example, security. The other experience that I gained from this was respect and understanding for the work of our Audit Office. The National Audit Office has been particularly professional in its approach and I use this opportunity to praise it. It scrutinises very closely the operations of our government departments and the programs they deliver, which is something we would all expect in this House. The role of the committee is to test that against public expectations, public demand and the expectations we place on the performance of our government departments. I support the report and thank the House for the opportunity to make these comments.Mr CHARLES (La Trobe) (4.47 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills5987R16095987Debate resumed.16:47:005987George, Jennie, MPMs GEORGEJH5ThrosbyALP00—In my electorate there has been a collective sigh of relief about the earlier, quite unprincipled, threat to put at risk the $100 million as part of the Commonwealth State Disability Agreement. The people who attended the forum that we held recently, that was addressed by my colleague the member for Canberra, indicated quite clearly to me, as their elected representative, that they were pleased the earlier threat had been withdrawn, but also that there were a lot of issues they hoped could be resolved in a bipartisan manner. These went to the heart of issues revolving around unmet need and some of the emerging issues which they believe the government has not properly considered. I touched on a number of them earlier. In summary, they go to the issue of respite care and the plight of young people with disabilities who are currently in the care of ageing parents and what happens to them. I remarked earlier on the efforts of one of my constituents, Mr Jim Lyon, in association with members of the Catholic church who have been given a parcel of land on which they want to build suitable accommodation for these young folk. I think this is a demographic trend that government needs to consider. When I have visited nursing homes in my electorate, I have seen young people with disabilities accommodated in aged care nursing facilities, which, to me, seems quite inappropriate. I think it is an issue of ongoing concern. Together with the member for Canberra, I visited Greenacres Association, which provides employment opportunities for many people with disabilities who were previously embraced in the area of sheltered workshops. They expressed to us the concern that, as the business focus increases, it might leave many people at this enterprise—some of whom have been there for 20 or 30 years—in a precarious position. There are a range of emerging issues in that sector which they hoped both sides of parliament could address in a bipartisan manner. That is certainly the intention reflected in the amendment that comes before you from the member for Lilley, our shadow spokesperson.As I said earlier, there are a large number of people on the disability support pension in my electorate—5,987 at the last count. I hope that in my contribution in this House I have done justice to the concerns they have expressed in correspondence and other forms of communication with my office. I want to make sure that people who, in the future, find themselves in the position of being applicants for the DSP are not treated as second-class citizens. In my electorate, I do not want to have two levels of people on the DSP—one with the benefits and entitlements currently prevailing and another with similar levels of disability finding, through no fault of their own, that $52 is cut out of their basic life support.In case members of the government think that I am only expressing an attitude being promoted by the Labor Party, I will make a few comments about the community view on this very important issue. It may be that government members appreciate that what they are doing is totally out of sync with community sentiment. We only need to look at market research that was commissioned by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—and never publicly released—which said: `Both working and pension groups generally supported maintaining a strong supportive safety net.' In other words, what they were saying reaffirmed the traditional Australian notion of a fair go and Australia's support historically for the underpinning of a social security safety net. The participants in this market research went on to say: `Governments need to help ensure people are not left behind, that we will not ask people to do more than they are capable of, that we will not ask those who are looking after children to work.' Very importantly for this debate, they believed in more opportunities and no greater obligations for people with disabilities. I think that reflects the general sentiment of the Australian citizen: they believe in a fair go and in the underpinning of both the industrial and social security safety nets. It is probably for this reason that we see an absence of participation on the government benches—they know that the bill before us is totally out of sync with prevailing community attitudes.In conclusion, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of my electorate. I am beginning to understand the needs of that sector. Finally, I have come to the position—as all have on this side of the House—that I will not support the bill in its recast form. It really does nothing to change the substance of the earlier proposals. In fact, it tries to pull a swiftie by saying, `We'll put a circle around existing people on DSP and let the others face the new work test.' That would create two classes of citizens on DSP, which is an untenable position for the Labor Party.We believe that the current proposal would cut a gaping hole in the social safety net, which Australian citizens support. It would see up to 100,000 Australians with a disability receive $52 less a fortnight than others with identical disabilities. It is on the basis of these objections, and many more that have been outlined in contributions from our side of the chamber, that Labor continues to oppose the bill and seeks from the government a commitment to a bipartisan approach to resolve and meet the many unaddressed needs of this very important sector. This opportunity is probably one of the rare occasions when people can speak on behalf of the disability sector.16:54:005989Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“the House declines to give the Bill a second reading, and(1) condemns the Howard Government's attempt to deny Disability Support Pensions to more than 100,000 Australians living with a disability over the next three years;(2) condemns the Government's attempt to create two classes of people with disabilities by seeking to pay many of those who apply for a Disability Support Pension after 1 July 2003, $52 a fortnight less than people currently receiving the payment;(3) endorses the view of the ALP supporting the need for welfare reforms that offer the opportunity for people with disabilities to participate fully in the community, including to work;(4) refuses to support Government cost cutting that will discourage people with a disability from seeking employment; and(5) calls on the Government to work with the ALP on a bipartisan basis to achieve real welfare reform”.If ever there were an example which demonstrates how this government does not understand how tough people out there are doing it and that members of this government do not walk in the same shopping aisles as average Australians, it is the fact that only one backbench member from the Liberal and National parties spoke on the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002. This important bill not only has the potential to affect 640,000 disability support pensioners but is also relevant to the three million Australians who have some form of disability. For many of those people, despair walks at their shoulder—they do it pretty tough. To come into this House and find that the government—which says that this is one of the most important welfare reforms that could ever be put forward—has only one member speaking on the bill, speaks volumes for how out of touch the government is and also for the fact that it does not understand how most Australians are living and the challenges before them. This bill is just a watered-down attempt by the government to implement its budget decision to cut payments to tens of thousands of people with disabilities by $52 a fortnight. Fifty-two dollars a fortnight is not a lot if you are on a parliamentary salary, but it is a hell of a lot if you have difficulty trying to buy a loaf of bread or a litre of milk. This bill is almost a carbon copy of the original bill introduced into this House, which was withdrawn by the government in the Senate in face of its certain defeat. Like the first bill, this bill seeks to give effect to the government's mean spirited 2002-03 budget measure to alter eligibility requirements for a person to receive the disability support pension. To the casual observer, it has indeed been interesting watching the government flip-flop in its justifications for these cuts.Initially we were told that the changes were all about assisting and supporting people with disabilities to find employment. But as soon as the community saw through all of that phoney language, the government ramped up its welfare rorter rhetoric. The minister at the table, the Minister for Employment Services, came in in a big way on that one, ramping up the welfare rorter rhetoric. Then the government said it had to be done because there were all these malingerers with bad backs—they were the problem. They were now the target, never mind the fact that people with significant disabilities would still be affected by the cuts. The truth is that this is an unprecedented attack and an affront to the 3.1 million Australians who have disabilities. I can tell you, Minister, they are very aware of your attitude. As the member for Throsby said, there is a deep commitment in this community to maintaining the social safety net and to giving these people a hand up, not to cut a gaping hole in the safety net and push tens of thousands of disability support pensioners through it.As I said in relation to the first bill, these changes are not about welfare reform; they are about removing the income and material assistance available to people with disabilities and then asking them to go out and get a job. There is a fundamental problem in that logic. The question no government member, from the Prime Minister down, will answer is: why do you need to cut someone's income to help them get work? I will tell you why: because this government says you motivate well-to-do people by giving them more and you motivate poor people by giving them less. It is their fundamental belief system and it runs through so much of the flawed and mean social policy propagated by this government.The only difference in this bill today is that the government proposes to save or grandfather existing recipients of disability support pension from the new rules, in doing so creating a new unfairness. The proposition is that the new rules apply only to people seeking the disability support pension who apply on or after 1 July 2003. As previously, the bill seeks to amend the current work test for people applying for the disability support pension and those having their entitlement reviewed. Specifically, schedule 1 seeks to alter the definition of work capacity from 30 hours a week at award wages or above to 15 hours. It should be noted that the current test is whether a person is capable of working 30 hours a week inside a period of two years and follows a medical determination that a person has a disability. Item 15 of schedule 1 contains the new transitional provisions that protect claims lodged for disability support pension prior to 1 July 2003.Schedule 1 also seeks to broaden the types of assistance or intervention that can be considered in determining work capacity. This has the effect of giving the secretary of the department greater flexibility in making a judgment about whether, with appropriate intervention, a person has a capacity to work at the threshold level or above inside two years. The schedule also seeks to remove the ability to consider local labour market conditions for people aged over 55 in determining their work capacity. That is why it will have a fundamental effect in areas such as those represented by the member for Throsby. As a result, an individual with 10 years of retirement and living in a community with negligible labour market programs or employment prospects would no longer have their limited employment or training opportunities taken into account and would not qualify for the more generous disability support payment.Again, claims lodged prior to 1 July 2003 would not be affected by this measure, but the bottom line in this bill is that the government's intention of tightening access to DSP and placing people on lower-paying benefits is not changed. That fundamental unfairness is there. Figures provided during the Senate estimates hearings confirm that the revised measure would result in approximately 103,700 claimants for the disability support pension having their applications for the payment rejected over the forward estimates period through to 2005-06. Many of these claimants will only qualify for the lesser Newstart allowance—a difference of $52 a fortnight—some will qualify for other pension payments, and a small proportion of people will qualify for no payment at all. This will entrench a two-tiered system that will create two classes of disability support recipients, depending on when their claims were lodged. We will have a situation where two people with exactly the same disability and barriers to employment will be on two different payments. One will receive the higher-paying disability support pension, along with all the ancillary benefits, like the pensioner concession card, the pharmaceutical allowance, access to the pensioner education supplement and greater incentive to work due to an income test that claws back less of their earnings. The other person with the same disability will receive the lower-paying allowance, Newstart, worth $52.80 per fortnight less. They will not have a pensioner concession card to reduce public transport costs, car registration, rates or utilities. They will also not automatically receive the pharmaceutical allowance, which will see them have greater out-of-pocket expenses for medicines that help control their illness or disability. If they try and improve their skills through study, they will not be eligible for the education supplement to help with study related costs. In addition, the disabled person on Newstart will have to actively look for work, line up in the dole queue and fill out a dole diary, and they may also be forced to work for the dole. What this government is effectively saying is that people with significant disabilities can go and line up like everybody else; it is saying that there is no difference. It does not matter whether you have got a significant disability or not. Two people with the same disability can have different payments and requirements. To any reasonable person, it should be apparent that this is unfair. When you get down to it, the problem is that this government simply does not recognise the dignity of ordinary people or the hurdles and barriers that people with disabilities in our community face. The government's compromise position, which separates people with disabilities on the basis of the timing of their claim, does not even address its own concerns. It says it is concerned that people with so-called bad backs be separated out from those with genuine disabilities. The fact is that the work test changes will affect people with varying levels and types of disability, including those with severe physical disabilities and chronic psychiatric disabilities. It says that people with disabilities who work in business services—that is, what were formerly known as sheltered workshops—will be protected, but the truth is that the changes protect only those currently on the disability support pension. People with disabilities who take business service work after 1 July 2003 may do so on Newstart with the responsibility to look for jobs. The government is saying, `Out you go—out of the business service, out of the sheltered workshop—down to Centrelink, and take your chances down there.' The government's instrument for separating out so-called malingerers is, therefore, a very blunt one indeed. May I suggest that, if the government is serious about malingerers, it should step up its compliance efforts—not cut them back, as it has through the disbanding of front-line fraud detecting staff in Centrelink. Today, we are particularly concerned about those people who have serious disabilities that will be caught by the changes—in particular, those suffering from mental illness. Many may look like you or me, but their disability can be just as severe as that of someone with a very obvious physical condition. Many of these conditions may be episodic, making it impossible for these people to live normally for a sustained period. But there will also be those who do have serious and obvious disabilities who will be caught by the new test if it is assessed that they have a work capacity of 15 hours a week or more. These changes will open the door for people with significant disabilities to be pushed onto the dole queue. I urge government members who have not been here today to think very seriously about what is being done.Eligibility for the disability support pension no longer includes a defined list of manifest conditions that automatically entitle people with disability to the benefit. People must meet a minimum level of impairment and undergo the work test. The two cannot be traded off. If a person has a serious and significant disability but slips in under the work test, too bad—so says this government. The only specific and defined exception is for those with permanent blindness, and that will probably get the boot in the not too distant future. The changes put forward will see people with paraplegia, acquired brain injury, profound deafness, rheumatoid arthritis and other terrible disabilities and illnesses forced onto the dole queue. The Labor Party says we should not have people on crutches or sitting in wheelchairs in our nation's dole queues. That is the fundamental difference between us and the coalition.There are many other pitfalls in this bill today. The government's compromise position will also mean that an individual who moves off the payment to work, or for another reason, but returns later will also lose benefits. This will create a disincentive for those already on the disability support pension to take on work or other opportunities, which is directly at odds with the government's stated aim of increasing participation. Labor has very good policy reasons for opposing these changes, apart from those that have been outlined already. Put simply, the 15-hour test is too low. It will entrench people in poverty. What do I mean by that? By definition, people forced onto Newstart or another allowance may only have a capacity to work 15 or 16 hours—but no more than that. At minimum wages, this is just $340 per fortnight before tax. These people will be trapped on an allowance-level payment, which is supposed to be intended as a short-term benefit, earning a paltry income, with no ability or prospect to increase their income to a reasonable level. They, by definition, cannot move off the payment, unlike existing allowance recipients who have no disability and who, given the skills and a willing employer, may increase their earnings and move off the payment and even into full-time work. These people are caught in a classic poverty trap, and it is very unfair.What is the alternative? Are there problems with the disability support pension? Of course there are, and we have outlined those on many occasions. Let us look at the total numbers, which have increased substantially over the last decade in particular. Disturbingly, under the coalition the annual increase has not slowed despite a reasonably strong economy. It is easy to be alarmist about the increase, but it is not as dire as the coalition claims and it is not because of an influx of rorters and malingerers. Firstly, what we have seen is a loss of full-time work and an increase in part-time work. In particular, the losers have been mature aged people who have worked in traditional industries and who, in many instances, have worn and broken bodies after a lifetime of work. They also have no skills to re-enter employment in other areas nor are many employers willing to give them a chance. The largest growth areas of late have been with older women, resulting from the progressive increase in the female age pension age and the phasing out of widows pensions and allowances. Additionally, under the coalition growth has flowed from the liberalisation of the income and assets test for pensions, seeing people with disabilities but with higher levels of private incomes from savings and investments become eligible. Also responsible to a small degree is an increase in the level of disability in the community, mainly driven by advancements in medical treatment and technology. So this is not simply a case of malingerers, as ministers in this government would have us believe. The causes for the increase in disability support pension numbers are many and varied. To suggest otherwise is completely simplistic and does no service to foster intelligent and rational discussion in our community. Labor's approach is to increase the number of people on disability pension who work. Labor agrees that too few people with disabilities are working when they can and indeed are willing to do so. The problem is that the government does very little to encourage and facilitate people on DSP to work.Labor's approach was different. Labor's disability reforms of the early 1990s, which activated the social security system and brought a focus on the assessment of capacity of people receiving disability support pension, would have assisted many people to move off the pension and into work, if they had not been brought undone by this government. While the coalition has said there needs to be a focus on people's ability, not disability, it is somewhat ironic that this is the same government that abolished Labor's disability support panels—expert panels equipped to provide a thorough assessment of people's capacity. The government also axed $90 million per year in financial incentives for people with disabilities and other job seekers who find work via the earnings credit scheme. There are a litany of short-sighted cuts that have left us with an increasingly unsustainable system because it is trapping people on pensions. I mentioned many of them in my speech to the House on the original bill and I do not have time to list them today.Clearly, we are offering rehabilitation to just a fraction of those on the disability support pension who could benefit from it and then make a transition from welfare to work. The capacity of our specialist disability employment services is also severely limited when set against the 650,000 people on the disability pension. As of June 2000, some 46,000 people were on the books of these services and around 30,000 were being supported in work. Added to all of this, for most of the time the Howard government have been in office they have been taking an annual efficiency dividend of one per cent off disability employment services; one per cent of their budgets each year, every year. The central issue here is the unwillingness of the Howard government to recognise the importance of investing in assistance— training, rehabilitation and support—if we are to increase people's access to work. In its heart of hearts the government knows its attempt to force people with disabilities off the pension and onto the dole is not supported in the community, but it is so arrogant and so cocky that it will not respond. The community knows that this is really about forcing people with disabilities to pay for John Howard's and Peter Costello's spending spree prior to the election. That is why it has been so quick to resort to the rorting allegations—to resort, if you like, to the big smear. One minute the government is being high-minded and saying, `We must be strong and confront the looming crisis,' and the next it goes tabloid, lowbrow, and warns, `We must crack down on the bad-back rorters.' We heard about this from the member for Blair today. His ignorance is simply astounding—but, to anyone from Queensland, not surprising. The definition of people is very broad. Many people with musculoskeletal disabilities have more than one disability; that is, a person with a nervous system disorder may also have a musculoskeletal disability or vice versa. Also, 71.1 per cent of people with a musculoskeletal disability who are on the pension are aged over 50 years. They are our parents or grandparents. As I said earlier, in most cases these recipients are older blue-collar men and women who have been down a mine or worked in hospital wards all of their lives. They are people who have paid taxes and worked hard all their adult lives. They are now displaced by structural changes that have left them with plenty of physical pain and the wrong skill set to get work. These people will not work again unless a special investment is made. It is an investment that this government has not and will not make.When it comes to the disadvantaged in this country, this government always promises reform but delivers punishment. We have now hit rock bottom. Even the tired rhetoric cannot disguise the savagery of what this government is doing. We need some positive reforms. We need heightened public awareness of the unmet need for disability services so that people get the support they so desperately require. We need a political consensus for genuine welfare reforms. We need to break down the barriers between the Commonwealth and state governments that inhibit the efficient and accountable delivery of services. But this cannot be achieved when one of the parties is negotiating while aiming a gun at the heads of people with a disability and their families. We need to have as our goal helping people with disabilities to participate. That means identifying pathways through rehabilitation, specialist training, skilling and employment assistance and resourcing those pathways properly. We need to encourage and prepare people with disabilities for participation; we do not need to cut their pensions. There is a cost attached to having a disability and that cost increases with participation. Labor will not support pension cuts and nor should the Prime Minister, who promised they would not be cut prior to the election. We cannot ask someone to participate if we cannot guarantee some level of support to get work and to stay in work. We cannot afford to set people with a disability up to fail. There needs to be a one on one commitment from the government to each person who is working to make a transition off welfare. The government must recognise that there are up-front costs attached to the real reform of the disability support pension; in fact, there is a large up-front investment needed. But, in the longer run, such an investment for some will save the equivalent of a whole pension—$421 a fortnight—and improve someone's life, rather than just $52 a fortnight plus the human misery that goes with it. We will not support this bill because it matches none of these principles. We are not going to be blackmailed. Labor is not going to negotiate on any aspect of this legislation—not in this House or in the Senate. We implore the Democrats to back our stance. They must remain rock solid in the Senate or 100,000 people are going to pay the price. This is not the time for negotiation. If the government comes to its senses, we are more than happy to sit down with it on a bipartisan basis and discuss constructive, genuine welfare reform. We are a prosperous country. Why are we cutting such a gaping hole in our social safety net and making some of the most vulnerable people in our community pay the price?10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?17:15:005994Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00— I have great delight in seconding the amendment. I am very pleased and proud to follow the honourable member for Lilley in this debate on the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002, because finally we will see some commonsense put to the government as far as this bill is concerned. The measures in the bill have been variously described by the Howard government as `the next stage of welfare reform', `a necessary reform that will ultimately ensure the sustainability of the social security system', `a crackdown on rorters with bad backs' and `a savings measure'. I believe that it is an unprecedented attack on the 3.1 million Australians who have a disability. Perhaps a more appropriate name would be the Howard government's plan B in their deliberate campaign to further disadvantage people with disabilities. The changes in this bill seek to give effect to the government's 2002-03 budget measures for the disability support pension. The measures will, they tell us, reduce the number of hours per week a person can work and still claim the disability pension from 30 hours to 15 hours. However, the compromise in this plan B is that existing disability support pensioners will not be affected by the changes, whereas under the government's original plan all disability support pensioners would have been affected. The only difference is that the changes will not come into effect until 1 July 2003. The effects of such a change in the eligibility criteria will result, as has been mentioned by other speakers in the debate, with two people with exactly the same disabilities being on two different forms of payment. Under Senator Vanstone's latest proposal, existing disability pensioners will remain on the disability support pension, while those people with disabilities who take out the pension after 2003, and who wish to work more than 15 hours a week, will have no option but to take out Newstart allowance—a payment of $52 per fortnight less. I think we have to realise that people with disabilities who have to take out the Newstart allowance will face not only that loss of income; they will also lose access to their pensioner concession card, which entitles the holder to a range of concessions, including reduction in property and water rates, reduction in their energy bills, fares and public transport, reductions in motor vehicle registration, the loss of four single or two return first-class rail travel journeys on Countrylink services anywhere in my state of New South Wales, and a loss of telephone account concessions. People with disabilities who take out the Newstart allowance will also have to look for up to 10 jobs per fortnight and fill out a dole diary. It is important to reconstruct Australia's welfare system, and Labor has given its support to changes which are constructed along the lines of sensible and workable reform. Sensible welfare reform is necessary in part because of the challenges of our rapidly changing economy but mostly because of the coalition government's appalling neglect and gradual dismantling of the bridges that existed to help people make the transition from welfare to work. However, this bill will not provide any assistance or help, and that is why we on this side of the House are voting against it. We believe that there is a need for fundamental welfare reform in this country, but it needs to be welfare reform which rewards work over welfare and which invests in the capacities of our people. The McClure report makes some credible and noteworthy recommendations on the path of a sustainable and fair welfare reform, and we support those principles. We agree that there needs to be a very close look at the current assessment practices in terms of eligibility. Those sorts of factors are all relevant. Our objection to the bill is, very simply: you do not have to cut someone's pension to assist him or her to participate in the social or economic life of this country. The package before the House, which effectively creates two classes of people with a disability, is fundamentally unfair; and my colleague the shadow minister for family and community services has pointed that out on numerous occasions. The shadow minister has also pointed out to the government that, in certain business service units, otherwise known as sheltered workshops, under these rules there could be two people with Down syndrome or cerebral palsy working side by side, and, under these measures, we would have a situation where one person could be paid $52 a fortnight more than the other. Why should someone with a disability, on a disability pension, receive less than another person who has exactly the same or similar disability? Is it because of the time when they applied for their pension? Real welfare reform is based on a commitment to participation, both social and economic. If the government want to sit down and work out genuine welfare reform, then let us sit down and work together. But marginalising people with disabilities is not workable and it is not acceptable reform. The changes proposed in this bill are directly in breach of the Prime Minister's commitment to every disability support pensioner—during that election campaign in 2001 that we all remember so well—that he would never cut anyone's benefit. This is the promise the Prime Minister gave the Australian people before the election: ...I re-state the assurances I have previously made: ... Nobody's benefit will be cut as a result of changes to the social security system.That was at the ACOSS Congress on 25 October 2001. He also promised people with disabilities before the election that disability support pension rules would not change. He said:The rules you must meet to be eligible for Disability Support Pension ... will not change.That is from the Centrelink pamphlet Australians Working Together.The measures in this bill clearly break these pre-election promises and remind us of the government's usual tactics: say one thing before the election and another after. Our opposition is based on a commitment to good policy and respect for people with disabilities.The proposal fails to recognise that it is fundamentally unfair to place someone with a disability, and who has a limited capacity to work, on the same payment as an able-bodied person who has no limitations. The Newstart allowance was designed as a payment for short-term benefit recipients who have the capacity to move off the payment and move into full-time work. It was not designed to support people who are incapacitated in their ability to work. Placing people with disabilities, who, by definition, cannot participate in work full time, onto Newstart allowance will leave them on a very low income on which they barely survive.Labor's offer to discuss welfare reforms with the coalition remains, but let there be an emphasis on developing a framework that maximises participation for people with disabilities, consistent with the principles established by the McClure committee. We must develop outcomes in welfare reform that respect the capacities of those people with disabilities in our communities. There is no guarantee in this bill that people will have an income on which they can survive and can do the best for themselves and their families.Members of the Howard government and the Minister for Family and Community Services have conducted themselves appallingly over the whole issue of welfare reform. When the government first realised that their unfair measures on disability pensions would not pass the Senate, the government threatened to withhold vital funding for disability services to the states—a completely cowardly move that would have even further disadvantaged people with disabilities. If the cuts to the services agreement had gone ahead, in New South Wales alone more than 200 operations that service people with disabilities would have faced closure. Throughout Australia many more would have closed. Thankfully, the Howard government backed down on this callous threat, and funding to disability services has remained. However, this episode simply shows the lengths to which the government are prepared to go to get their own way. If the government have to cut the pensions of people who are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, they say to us, `So what?'In my electorate, people who suffer from disabilities and are recipients of the disability pension have been profoundly misled and deceived by the government. I would like to relate to the House a few of the cases of people in my electorate and the run-around they have been given by Centrelink, which administers the government's welfare payments. One such case I have already mentioned in this House. Two blind people in my electorate were asked to declare their assets and income to Centrelink in order to continue to receive the disability support pension. Both had been receiving the pension for many years, and both had suffered blindness. Under Centrelink's own rules, pensions paid to people who are blind or visually impaired are not subject to the assets and income test, so my constituents asked why they were sent these forms in the first place. Were my constituents to believe that, within this whole shake-up of the welfare system, even blind pensioners would be asset tested? They came to my office with their husbands—and wives, in another case—in much distress. On behalf of these constituents, I wrote to the Minister for Family and Community Services. That letter was addressed to the minister and was dated 24 May this year. I would like to relate to the House that, to date, I have not received a reply in writing. All I received was a letter to the editor of the local paper in my area, the Fairfield City Champion, from an area manager of Centrelink—I do not think he has ever been to Fairfield in his life; he would not know what he was talking about if he saw the area—and the letter simply echoed this government's attitude to people with disabilities. All that was needed was an unreserved apology to my constituents in writing, but this seems to be too much for the minister in this government.After the matter had received coverage in our local media, a member of my staff was informed that Centrelink had telephoned the constituents at home, offered an explanation and then proceeded to ask my constituents whether the explanation was satisfactory and whether an apology from Minister Vanstone for the actions of Centrelink in this matter was really necessary. To make matters worse, a member of my staff was later informed by the area office in connection with this case that perhaps a medical operation could correct my constituent's blindness. We are talking about 40 years of blindness. This was completely ludicrous. It clearly reflects the Howard government's disregard for the administration of Centrelink and its uncaring attitude to people with disabilities. Although the constituents in question will now not have to undergo an income and assets test, I have still not received a written apology from either the minister or Centrelink with regard to those two constituents. I repeat: I originally wrote on their behalf on 24 May 2002. That letter, by the way, was hand delivered by one of the members of my staff to the minister's office here in Parliament House. So, no, it is not lost in the mail. Have we had a reply? No, we have not. Maybe it is too hard for Centrelink, the minister and this government to admit they are wrong.I received a letter about another case in my electorate, which highlights the government's complete disregard for and the uncaring attitude towards people with disabilities. The letter was from a woman whose daughter is intellectually disabled. The daughter works 21 hours per week. With no concession card, her train fare would be over $47.40 per fortnight, leaving her with very little to live on. After the woman heard about the changes proposed by the Howard government to the disability support pension and how those changes would affect her daughter, the woman suggested that her daughter's best option would be to quit her job and to remain on the disability pension. For many people with disabilities, going to work is not just about receiving a weekly income; it also gives them a tremendous amount of self-esteem. It provides them with friendship, a support group and, most of all, involvement within our community.Disabled people already face enough hurdles in trying to find employment. When they do find employment, many disabled people feel a great increase in their self-esteem, and they take a lot of pride in their work. Governments should do all they can to encourage disabled people to make the transition into the work force but, as we see from those two cases I have just presented, these proposed measures serve to punish those people on disability pensions who are able to work for more than 15 hours a week, if only by a fraction.The Howard government is making my constituent lose an opportunity to contribute to society and to enhance her quality of life. How do you say that to a 21-year-old? In this case, her mother suffered a great deal of uncertainty and worry because the government had not notified her of the proposed changes in payments. I am sure that there are thousands of parents and family members in exactly the same position around Australia. These two cases are typical of the Howard government's uncaring attitude towards the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society. This deliberate campaign of victimisation of people with disabilities, spearheaded by the government, is cowardly and it is bad policy. Not only is it unfair but it also places people with disabilities and their families under a great amount of uncertainty regarding their income and financial future.There has been a complete lack of information from the government to the recipients of the disability support pension regarding the proposed changes. I have received numerous complaints—as have many of my colleagues—from family members of people with a disability about the lack of information available to them. I support the tightening of the welfare system to prevent cases of abuse and strengthening the system so that those people who the government refers to as the `bad backs' do not receive a benefit to which they are not entitled.One of the government's main concerns is that people with so-called bad backs are claiming the disability pension while still being able and fit for work; however, this bill does not even address the government's own concern regarding this aspect of the disability support pension. Those people should be separated out from those with genuine disabilities. This bill will certainly do nothing to achieve that outcome. The government is not promising in the bill that people will be eligible for specialist employment assistance or rehabilitation. In taking money from them, this bill leaves them less able to meet the cost of looking for work. We on this side of the House recognise that many people with a disability do want to participate in work. We have constantly urged the government to invest in additional training and rehabilitation services rather than cut their pensions.When the Leader of the Opposition gave the budget reply, he maintained we would block the changes to the disability support pension. In the budget reply, the Leader of the Opposition put up alternative proposals through which the budget bottom line could be addressed, and he challenged the government to have these alternatives costed and to release the details of those costings. The government—surprise, surprise!—still has not responded. There is another way; there is a fairer way. Labor have shown it, and the government should be providing a decent outcome for all Australians, not an outcome that further disadvantages the seriously disabled in our community. Those on the government benches argue that we are being an obstructionist opposition; however, we have put forward real alternatives that improve the budget bottom line—alternatives that do not disadvantage people with disabilities who are already struggling to make ends meet. The message we are sending to the government in voting against this bill is simple: you do not need to cut a person's pension to help them get work. Look at the second reading amendment just moved in the House. You will find, by those words in the amendment, why we are totally opposed to any measures which disadvantage people with a disability.I strongly condemn the government for this uncaring and heartless attitude towards those people with a disability who are part of our population in Australia and for whom people like us should take some caring responsibility to ensure that their lives are made that much easier. I condemn the bill, I will vote against the bill and I praise the amendment that has just been moved in the House. 17:32:005998McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I would like to begin my speech on the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 by saying that Labor oppose this legislation. We will not be supporting any move to send it off to a Senate committee for examination as we are not prepared to negotiate over any aspect of this flawed and disgraceful piece of legislation. It is not wanted; it is not needed; it is not on. Labor says, `Shame, shame!' to the Howard government for bringing this legislation into the House under the guise of welfare reform. Labor says, `Shame, shame!' for even thinking of making life for people with disabilities more difficult and confusing by attempting to create three classes of recipients when people think they fall into the category of a disability support pension. One class of people is pensioners who are already receiving the disability support pension. The second class of people is those who apply for it after 1 July 2003 and are successful. The third class of people is those who miss out on it and are put on Newstart and receive less income and less in the way of concessions and support.Instead of encouraging people to move from welfare to work, this legislation will make people reluctant to increase their work hours because, if they do, they will lose their disability support pension, their pension card and the majority of their concessions. The current situation is that the criteria for the disability support pension enable people to work up to 30 hours per week, earn wages, receive a part pension and be eligible for the pension card and related concessions and benefits. When the Howard government put the first attempt at this type of legislation through the House earlier this year, under the guise of welfare reform, many thousands of people would have lost their pensions and many new applicants would not have been able to get it. In their first attempt, the Howard government wanted to change the criteria and reduce the hours of work from 30 hours to 15 hours. Many thousands of people would have lost their pensions at the two-year review and would have been put on Newstart, with fortnightly paperwork and requirements to actively job hunt. With the first attempt, Labor was successful in ensuring that the legislation was not successful in getting through both houses.Community outrage and resistance was enormous. The Howard government, however, did not get the message, and has now brought this disgraceful piece of legislation into the House. Again, the government is presenting this legislation under the guise of welfare reform. Again, the Howard government is proving that it is mean and tricky. I am surprised that my colleagues on the other side of the chamber are supporting this pathetic excuse for legislation, this pathetic attempt at welfare reform. Let us look at the definition of `reform'. We must keep this in mind because I believe it is vitally important to remember what our role in amending income support legislation should be. It should reform, not take away; it should be about better governance; it should be about providing a safety net for those in times of social need. According to the Collins Australian Dictionary, `reform' is a verb meaning: 1. to improve an existing institutional law ... by ... corrections of abuses. 2. to give up or cause to give up a ... bad habit or way of life. 3. correction of abuses or malpractices. 4. improvement of morals or behaviour ...How is this legislation improving life for people with a disability or a chronic illness? I realise the government believes the people of this land who need to claim a disability support pension are abusing the system because they wish to work when and where their illness or disability allows. How terrible it is for a person who needs the safety net of the pension because of a long-term illness or disability to try to support themselves when they are able, and therefore reduce their reliance on the income support system—or, as it is often called, the welfare system. Does the government really believe that wanting to undertake training and/or work is welfare abuse or rorting? Does the government want to remove any incentives for new recipients of this payment to work at all? That is what this bill is about. Some of you may be thinking, `Hang on a minute, doesn't this just drop the work test from six hours per day to three hours per day?' Colleagues, if things were so simple, would the bill not have been written this way in the first place, I ask you?I wish to remind you now of the people living in each of our electorates who, for instance, have an intellectual impairment. I am sure we each know someone, and I am sure we all know many people who are engaged in approved activities such as a business service, more commonly known as a workshop program. I remember the pride that these people beam with when they tell me, with an air of such importance, `Oh yes, Jann, I go to work every day. Very important! They can't do without me.' What they are talking about is their participation in a workshop program run by the various disability organisations around our country. In the Stirling electorate, these workshop programs are run primarily by the Activ Foundation. Between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.—school hours—many go to work. This is important to them and their families; however, this is work—six hours per day, 30 hours per week. While it is not for award wages, and therefore the minister will claim it is exempt from this new legislation, other proposed legislation seeks to change the circumstances of this employment to in fact reflect award wages. But that is another debate to be had, with its own set of pros and cons.People with disabilities do not trust the Howard government and believe they will lose their disability support pension. But should these changes pass into law, many people on the disability support pension will be left wide open to the negative effects of this bill. People will not benefit from the more generous payment of a disability support pension, which goes a small way towards the costs involved in having a long-term illness or disability. Instead, these people and their families will find themselves on the lesser benefit of Newstart and dealing on a fortnightly basis with the intricacies of the Newstart system. It is not logical, but it is possible. The alternative for these families is to not allow their family member to go to the work which is so important for their esteem and social skills and which provides a vital form of respite for their loving and supportive families. Is claiming a disability pension by these intellectually impaired people an abuse or malpractice of the law? Surely not. Then I ask you: are such activities by these individuals a bad habit or morally wrong? It begs the question as to whether this government does not in fact think it reprehensible that such people should participate in a productive and social way within our community. This legislation seems to suggest that.Unfortunately, those with intellectual impairments who seek to claim disability support pensions are not the only ones who will be affected by this proposed legislation. Many others will be potentially rendered ineligible by the changes. I want members of the House to consider the case of a person with a mental illness. Unfortunately, there are many Australians struggling to live with this disability, some more successfully than others. An important step in the process of dealing with this disability for many—for both the sufferer and their family—is the granting of a disability support pension. It is one element of security in what is often a very uncertain world and one less thing to worry about. A feature of many mental illnesses is that they can be cyclical in the degree of symptoms. Many people have times when they can function sufficiently well to work, sometimes even full time, but sometimes this lasts only a few months before the person is again unable to work.If this legislation is passed it will mean that many of these people who currently work more than 15 hours per week will be transferred onto Newstart. When these people again begin to feel the impact of the illness, they have to go through the rigmarole of justification to Centrelink as to why they are unable to sustain the hours they were working and what the nature of their illness is to remain on a disability support pension. If they cannot cope with the bureaucratic hurdles and just allow themselves to be transferred onto Newstart, the added pressure of coping with the Centrelink paperwork can sometimes lead to a relapse.Colleagues, go to a Centrelink office and ask the staff there if they feel it would improve matters if this occurred. Most will answer that it is difficult enough with those who are still at that stage of the process. For those who suffer a chronic mental illness, under this legislation there would be no light at the end of the bureaucratic tunnel. The reality of the situation is that noncompliance with the rigours of the Newstart process would inevitably mean breaches for many of these people. In the end, it is their families and the non-government organisations in our communities that pay for the government's budget cut in the guise of welfare reform, and that means that we all pay. Is this reform to improve or reform to abuse?There are also many people in our communities living with degenerative or progressive illnesses such as multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease. The symptoms increase over many years, but often in quite fluctuating circumstances. These people struggle, often juggling the increasing demands of their illness whilst trying to maintain their job. The imperative to work is financial, not social. Loss of hours and loss of wages mean loss of income and increasing reliance on the disability support pension. This also brings changes to the person's life and living arrangements. At the same time, an increase in medical expenses usually occurs. This would mean that their life, and often their families' lives, are diminished. Having to cope with the bureaucratic nightmare of being switched from a pension to Newstart is not helpful to them at a difficult stage in their lives.On the Howard government's web site for the responsible department, the Department of Family and Community Services, there is a theme or philosophy of `stronger families, stronger communities'. The question I want to ask is: how does this legislation support that philosophy? I also want to ask: if the Howard government is serious about assisting people on a disability support pension—or future applicants—then where are the job creation strategies, the rehabilitation services and the specialist employment services? Surely in the modern world rhetoric is not good enough—people want practical services and practical solutions in their lives. So where are the job creation strategies, the rehabilitation services and the well-resourced employment services to assist people in moving from welfare to work, while providing a secure safety net for people in times of need? I do not see them in this legislation. Along with the community, I do not believe the government's promises on additional funding for specialist employment services.Out there in the broader community there is a lot of unhappiness with the Howard government and with this legislation. The community do not see this legislation as welfare reform; they see it as a budget cut that will take money out of the pockets of ordinary people struggling to work and to participate in society. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the table on financial impact on the inside cover of the explanatory memorandum to this legislation, which shows that the savings that the Howard government is going to make with this legislation amount to $163.2 million. This is money out of the pockets of individuals and families.The community services that provide assistance and support to people in times of social need have serious concerns about this legislation. I share the concerns of ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, that were expressed in their media release of 19 June 2002 about the previous legislation that failed. ACOSS say:The proposed changes are about budget cost cutting when a positive strategy to improve the job prospects of people with a disability is required. They fail to take account of the complex and varied difficulties faced by people with disabilities and chronic illness who wish to participate economically and socially in the life of the community. On the disability support pension cuts, ACOSS say:The proposal to tighten DSP eligibility conditions would:· cut the weekly income of large numbers of people with a disability by $26 per week;· make the transition to work for people on DSP both more difficult and less attractive by capping eligibility where a person is assessed as being capable of work for just 15 hours a week;· severely disadvantage older people with disability who face a `double barrier' to employment;· expose large numbers of people to the harsh and unfair breach penalties applied to unemployed people; and· provide less generous income and asset testing requirements. On the issue of practical assistance for people who want to work or who want to increase job skills or who want to move off welfare into work, ACOSS has this to say:Employment helpWe welcome and support the provision of additional employment assistance places for people with disabilities where this may assist people with disabilities who have not had a previous opportunity to participate. However, this help can and should be offered without cutting people off the pension. People with disabilities are queuing to use employment services and the Government will save money in the long term simply by investing in better opportunities for people with disabilities to enter the paid workforce. ACOSS calls for a change of direction, but not the change outlined by the Howard government in this legislation. ACOSS says:The fundamental problems with the Government's current approach to welfare reform means that a change in direction is needed. Many people with disabilities and chronic illness want to work and would be able to do so with the right support. We believe income support policies for people with disabilities and chronic illness should emphasise capacity rather than incapacity. This means the focus must be on the removal of disincentives for participation in work and compensation for the extra costs of workforce and social participation to the degree compatible with capacity. Investment in support for people with disabilities and chronic illness should include:further investigation of the costs of disability and chronic illness as part of the development of a participation support payment; tackling employer discrimination; addressing the lack of accessible transport, personal care and accommodation; legislative change to protect unemployed people, many of whom have a disability or chronic illness but who do not qualify for DSP, from the harsh regime of breaches and penalties;growth funding for the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement, informed by evidence of the levels of unmet need for disability support services and forecasted increases in the population of people needing assistance as well as CPI adjustments, and; removal of barriers to social participation.These practical solutions that ACOSS outlines so well come from the daily experiences of community services and community workers who work with people in need of support to improve their participation in society. We should be there also with practical solutions articulated in well-framed legislation to ensure people with disabilities and/or chronic illnesses move from welfare to work. Therefore, we should reject this legislation. If we do want legislative reform we need to come up with something that reflects good governance not mean and tricky government. I support the amendment moved by the shadow minister for family and community services. Like him, I believe that this government needs to be condemned for even thinking that they can cut a hole in the social safety net that would see 100,000 Australians with a disability receive $52 less a fortnight than others with identical disabilities. I also condemn the government for failing to remain true to its own McClure report recommendations. I see that Labor's commitment to genuine reform of disability pensions can be achieved if we work in a bipartisan way. I do not support the passage of this legislation. 17:48:006001Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—It is rare to find any obvious recognition of the circumstances and the specific needs of Indigenous people in the preparation and presentation of legislation in this parliament. I am very sorry to say that, but it is true. Despite the fact that the Commonwealth has explicit responsibility for Indigenous matters as a result of the 1967 referendum, this is not reflected in government deliberations or public statements. The responsible minister has argued often in the public arena about the need to mainstream Indigenous specific services, but fails, even now, to advocate for them in other ministers' portfolio areas. If you are going to mainstream them you need to have other ministers aware of the needs of Indigenous people. Both he and the Prime Minister prefer to handball the responsibility either to ATSIC or the states. Sadly, this is nowhere more obvious than in disability support programs and disability services. The Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill 2002 is a case in point. There is not a single reference that I can find in the government's arguments for the bill or in their published material about the situation of Indigenous people, particularly those in remote areas. No-one actually knows how many Indigenous people are on disability support pensions. So we will never know precisely how they will be affected by this legislation. It will remain a mystery. Like others in regional and remote Australia who in the past may have been able to get access to the disability support pension under the 30-hour test, they will now be required to use Newstart and the associated mutual obligation requirements. That is a problem in itself. It is already well known that this poses a particular problem for Indigenous Australians. Research conducted by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, CAEPR, indicated that during the period June 1997 to March 1998 national breach rates were consistently higher among Indigenous identifiers by a factor of about 1½ in relation to activity breaching and a factor of two in relation to administrative breaching. They gave a number of explanations for this, having examined it fairly closely. They found that the high rates of Indigenous breaching were associated with lower levels of literacy and higher rates of mobility—that should not be surprising; a lack of confidence in dealing with bureaucracies; a lower propensity to seek appeal or review of breaching; inadequate postal services to some remote and rural areas—I have seen some of those first hand; a lack of appreciation of difficulties for Indigenous people seeking employment—there very often are no opportunities; unfamiliarity with Centrelink teleservices—I am sure there would be a lot of sympathy with that; and CDEP and Abstudy administrative issues. All of those conspired to increase the breaching rates. Yet we have here a bill which is going to place an additional burden on such people. The study also identified elements of income support and employment assistance administration, such as general tensions and ambiguities in income support administration, different office cultures and roles, the cultural and social content of rules and procedures and the diversity of the unemployed, as having significant impacts on Indigenous benefit recipients. Yet none of this is taken into account, as far as I can see, in planning for the legislation or, indeed, in an explanation of its effects. Despite all this information being available, no policy adjustments have been made to allow for the circumstances of Indigenous people. An associated problem, which I touched on, is the paucity of job opportunities, community services, rehabilitation programs and Job Network placement assistance. They are pretty thin on the ground in most Indigenous communities and not easily available, particularly to Indigenous people with disabilities. For example, as part of the changes to the welfare system that this bill represents, the government is going to reassess people's capacity to work, and a tender is currently being let for, I understand, about 100,000 such assessments. But the tender allows only two hours to assess a person's capacity to work and to write up a report. How can this possibly be sufficient in remote Indigenous communities?My inquiries in looking at this bill have also revealed that access for Indigenous people to Commonwealth rehabilitation services, which are important if you are to get disabled people back to work, is almost non-existent. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service was set up to assist people to make the transition back to work. In the 12 months to 30 June last year, the organisation had provided rehabilitation to quite a small number of people—just 18,112 clients—and achieved durable employment outcomes for just 6,730 people. In other words, it is offering rehabilitation to a small proportion of those on the disability support pension who could benefit from it and make that transition from welfare to work. The capacity of specialist disability employment services—that is, services funded to provide the tailored support that people need to enter open employment—is also inadequate when set against the some 650,000 people who are on the disability pension. As at June 2000, some 46,000 people were waiting for these services, about 30,000 were being supported in work and 14,000 were being assisted to look for work. The scheme is assisting at this stage only seven per cent of the disability support pension population—that is Australia wide: only seven per cent—yet we are expected in this legislation to conclude that there will be support for disabled people trying to re-enter the work force and needing such rehabilitation and support services.To add to this grim picture, there are no Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service programs that are specific to Indigenous clients. In the 2001-02 year, there were just 158 new CRS clients who identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. There may have been more, but they were the ones who identified. It is a very small number, making up less than one per cent of all new clients to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. As we know, the Aboriginal community makes up 2.2 per cent of Australia's population, so it is less than their percentage of the population. As we also know, they suffer illness and disability at much higher rates than the rest of the community. There have been—it is true and should be acknowledged—some recent increases in the percentage of Indigenous people participating in CRS programs, partly because the programs are becoming more aware of Indigenous issues and needs. Nonetheless, we are still talking about one per cent. The increases have also been partly because CRS has recently introduced a mobile visiting unit in the Northern Territory which is starting to target Indigenous people in remote areas. It is also the case that a CDEP placement, on the other hand, is scored as a job outcome in their statistics. As we know, a CDEP placement is participation only in 13 consecutive weeks and, in many other places, would be regarded as unemployment or, indeed, as Work for the Dole.These figures make it clear that Indigenous people are substantially underrepresented in CRS servicing. Given the demonstrated higher incidence of welfare dependency, poor health and social disadvantage, one would think they should be overrepresented in CRS servicing. It is also fair to say that, as I have indicated, a CDEP participation placement is not placement into the open labour market and is far easier to achieve. So the success rates, such as they are, are misleading. This is—I am sad to say—part of a picture of neglect of Indigenous disability policy. As pointed out by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, basic data about the prevalence of disability in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations are still not available. There has been little progress in establishing national prevalence estimates since the 1995 survey results showed 2.8 per cent of Indigenous people aged between 25 and 44 and one per cent of those between 15 and 24 reported severe or profound handicaps. I was around as a minister when that work was done and nothing seems to have moved on since 1995. These results, on the face of it, appeared similar to prevalence rates in the general population, but as we understood at the time, and people have said since, they have to be treated with caution for a number of reasons which I will outline. A much more detailed study, using definitions of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, of Aboriginal people in the Taree region of New South Wales found rates of severe handicap about 2½ times greater than in the general population. I expect that, carefully surveyed, that would be the result nationwide. Some later studies of service use are consistent with this finding, although it is clear that there may be significant numbers of Indigenous people who do not access the services available for some of the reasons I outlined earlier: cultural inappropriateness, too far away, misunderstandings et cetera. The `snapshot day', as it is called, for 2000, on which the service use data were collected under the Commonwealth-state disability agreement, showed that only three per cent of the service users across accommodation support, employment services, community support, community access and respite services were Indigenous, with fewer using employment services and more using respite services. Several issues need to be noted when looking at these figures. Firstly, the data on the prevalence of disability among Indigenous people are likely to underestimate disability for a number of reasons. There are certainly cultural differences in identifying and conceptualising disability. We have to understand that disability is a social construct and, when people in some indigensous communities are simply asked whether they have a disability, it will not have the same meaning to them as it does to us. Some of the work has not been sufficiently careful to tease out those differences. In fact, there is a lack of quality research on the incidence and prevalence of disabilities in Indigenous communities. A lot of it is the result of poor sampling—simply not following up on all of the cases who should be included. There has been poor sampling of both those with disabilities as well as those who are Indigenous: we simply do not do the work as well as we might. Very often there is reduced access to services. If use of services is the measure that we are taking, then we are going to be misled. Disability will not be identified when it exists because of the poor availability of services or their unsuitability.Given the generally poor health of Indigenous people, including substantially elevated rates of chronic diseases, accidents, violence and substance abuse, there is likely to be an increased incidence of disability compared to the wider community. As I say, when careful research is done, at least on a small scale as it was in Taree, that is the effect that we find. It is also true that a lot of diseases affect Indigenous people at a younger age—diabetes, for instance—so that disability will be evident at a younger age. There are higher levels of morbidity for existing conditions, so the illnesses tend to be more severe and the consequences greater. And there is a resulting increase in the severity of disabilities, which we should be seeing in the data, resulting in a greater need for services. Unfortunately, the pattern is the opposite: the greater the need, the fewer the services. I cannot quite figure that out, but it seems to be what has been happening in this field over the last six to seven years.I think it is fair to say—and I do not make these judgments easily—that the government has done little or nothing to address disability in Indigenous communities, apart from funding a report on the establishment of a National Indigenous Disability Network. It is worth going through that, because at least it looks like some action. The investigation was undertaken by a joint working party of ATSIC and the Department of Family and Community Services and comprised Indigenous representatives and service providers. Community consultations and regional meetings were held. Since the government received that report in December 2000, there appears to have been no attempt to implement the recommendations suggested by the working party except the one relating to the establishment of a disability network. Many of them are worthy of consideration, and I commend them to the government.The main recommendation, because this was the point of the inquiry, was to establish a National Indigenous Disability Network. The recommendation was that it would be set up: to facilitate information exchange that should empower and educate Indigenous people with disabilities, their families and carers, the service providers and their communities—to bring people together; to act as a forum for discussion about the needs and hopes of Indigenous people with disabilities; to develop advice on Indigenous disability issues to local, state and national governments and to non-government organisations—in other words, to educate the service providers; to raise community awareness of the particular problems faced by Indigenous peoples with disabilities and their families and carers; to help mainstream agencies provide effective and culturally appropriate services by involving Indigenous people with disabilities, their families and carers, in decision making and delivery; and to develop a communications strategy, including an electronic clearing house, list server and discussion groups, linking up with existing communication networks. They are all fine objectives and the network, if it achieved them, would be doing extremely well.The working party, however, went further and recommended that the government should, first of all, increase traineeships and scholarships for Indigenous people to gain relevant skills so they could work with the disabled members of their community at an appropriately skilled level. They recommended that the government develop appropriate salary and accommodation packages to recruit and retain experienced therapists in remote and rural communities. It is a continuing problem, but particularly in areas where you need physiotherapists, occupational therapists, people with mental health skills and the like. They recommended the increased use of interpreters to increase understanding across diverse cultures and language groups. It is not always well understood in Australia, but a great many Indigenous people around this country still have English not just as their second language but sometimes as their third or fourth language—they have had to master several other languages before they get to English. The use of interpreters should be much more widespread. They recommended that there be greater employment of Indigenous liaison officers in service delivery agencies to act as advocates for Indigenous people with disabilities to try to bridge some of those gaps that I have pointed to. They also suggested the appointment of senior Indigenous staff to mainstream jobs. As far as I can see, none of those other recommendations has been acted upon or, if any has, the government is keeping it a big secret. It is not evident in any of the published material nor in research that I have had had undertaken through the library. As far as I have been able to determine, from internal ATSIC memos and from the minutes of the working group itself, the working group has been hamstrung by inadequate resources and a lack of enthusiasm from the government. Remember, the government received this report in late 2000. A decision was made in February 2001, it is true, to establish an interim network and to hold a conference to progress the negotiation of an effective Indigenous disability strategy with the relevant state and Commonwealth service agencies. It seems to me that that is a bit belated. This government has been in power since 1996. In 2001 it is talking about the need to develop a strategy with relevant state and Commonwealth agencies. And a monumentally huge grant of $56,000 was made for this purpose! That was from ATSIC. A one-off payment of $20,000 was to be allocated from FACS, but there were delays in its application and there has been little progress. Not surprisingly, several members of the working party expressed—as the minute puts it—their `anger and disappointment at the lack of progress in establishing the network'.It was not until October last year that the inaugural meeting of the interim National Indigenous Disability Network was held. The people on the committee are not responsible for this. I give them credit: they are trying very hard—but without any government support, financially or in terms of motivation and enthusiasm. Since then, they have held meetings to seek endorsement of the network from state, territory and Commonwealth ministers, and a conference is scheduled for later this year to consider in part an ongoing commitment to the network. So they are going round and round in a circle. They have my sympathy. None of the other substantive recommendations that I have outlined appears to have received any attention from the government.I raise these questions in the debate on this bill because of the failure by the government to look at the unique circumstances of Indigenous Australians when it comes to disability—whether it is the income support or the services provided to them. It is a great shame that so little has been done. I recommend that the government look closely at the work of their own working group and at the recommendations that have been made; that they sit down quickly with state and territory governments and insist that the necessary developmental work is completed—since it appears to have been started; that in Australia we have an appropriate response for Indigenous people who have disabilities and that their needs are not simply swept aside at the convenience of a government that want to tell us that they are interested in mainstreaming services while none of the services is aware or alert to the needs of Indigenous people with disabilities. This is an area where the government need to act, where there have been plenty of recommendations that they should act and where there are people of goodwill trying to make them act. It is time that they did.18:06:006006Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—If there is one piece of legislation that shows how much this government is stuck in the last century it is this piece of legislation, the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002. One of the things that you could always criticise progressive governments for was that they had the bad habit of coming up with solutions to problems that existed 20 years ago. Of course, Tory governments did not even realise there was a problem or, if they knew about one, they would bury their heads in the sand and hope that it went away. In this case, it seems that this conservative government can see a problem but now they want to use a solution that is past its use-by date. This is, after all, the same party that, when in government in the 1960s and 1970s, allowed our industries to fall behind the rest of the world. We finished up with a rust-bucket manufacturing industry and a labour force that lacked the skills and capacity to match it with the newly emerging economies.This is the same government that now tells us that the economy is going `gangbusters', but cannot explain why unemployment is still around seven per cent. It cannot explain why the bulk of new jobs created in Australia are part-time jobs. And it cannot explain why the number of people on disability support pension has increased by 50 per cent over the past 10 years. So it is hardly surprising that this government comes up with changes that might have had some effect 20 years ago but will do nothing but cause grief and hardship for thousands of Australian families if this bill is passed in this day and age.To give an example of the changes in the labour market I want to refer to a case that was brought to my attention a few weeks ago. It concerns a woman who had been employed with a large organisation for 12 years. During the course of her employment she suffered a spinal injury and spent some months on workers compensation while she recovered. When she returned to work she was given duties which made allowance for her condition. After a time she returned to close to full capacity. She worked in a team environment and, whenever her lifting limitations were reached, other team members would gladly carry out that part of her work while she undertook lighter duties. While she has recovered from most of the effects of her injury, it has been found that her condition is a degenerative one and she will not fully recover her work capacity. Her fellow team members had no problem whatsoever with her undertaking only lighter duties, but her employer was not satisfied. As a result, she was asked to take all her sick leave, all her annual leave and all her long service leave. She was placed on leave without pay until a set date when her employment was to be terminated unless she could show that she was capable of performing 100 per cent of the duties specified for her position, even though she would never be required to perform them. Her employer is not some fly-by-night sweatshop operator. Her employer is not one that pays exceptional wages for high performance. Her employer is not an overseas owned corporation with little interest in Australia except as a market for its goods. No, her employer is in fact Australia Post. Here we have an employer 100 per cent owned by this government, an employer with a charter that you would think goes beyond making a profit for its shareholders, an employer that you would think might set itself up as a model for meeting the needs of its work force. But no, here is an example of what is happening in just about every workplace across the country. And what did Australia Post offer to assist this loyal employee who had given 12 years faithful service—an employee who suffered an injury in the workplace that contributed to a loss of capacity? They offered to pay for her to do a keyboarding course so that she might be able to get a job somewhere else. That seems strange, because Australia Post employs thousands of people with keyboarding skills. So why wouldn't they offer to retrain her for one of those positions? Like so many other companies today, they are not prepared to modify the workplace to suit employees who might need only slight changes to enable them to be 100 per cent productive. That might be okay if you can afford to pick and choose—and, with seven per cent unemployment, Australia Post can pick and choose its employees.The matters I have just mentioned are the subject of a dispute which is before the Industrial Relations Commission, so I will not go any further down that path. But if a large government owned organisation can condemn some 70 employees in this fashion, how can the many thousands of people with a small incapacity hope to get jobs anywhere else? And this is where the government's proposal is at least 20 years out of date. The government's ideas about mutual obligation are all about using a stick to force people to go through the anguish of applying for jobs that they know they have not got a chance of getting. It is all about blaming the victims. It is all about dividing our society into those with the full capacity to work and those who need assistance to find and maintain suitable employment.But where is the mutual obligation for business? Where is the mutual obligation for Australia Post to provide a suitable workplace? If organisations of that size, which are owned by this government, have no obligation to employ workers with a slight disability, one that does not affect their productivity, what sort of mutual obligation do small businesses have? This is where the government's policy is wrong. These changes to the family and community services legislation will not create a single job opportunity for a person with a disability. They will not provide the kind of workplace training that would assist someone with even a minor disability to work for award wages. The changes have one purpose and one purpose only: they are designed to save money. But when you work out what the government will save by keeping people on the payments made to job seekers compared with the disability support payments, it is a false saving. It is when I think about which section of the community will be most affected by this bill that its basic unfairness comes through, because new candidates for disability support payments are likely to be mature workers. We are condemning this group of people to a very difficult future.Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I understand that, by agreement with the government, there is further legislation to go before the House. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Business60076007Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (6.15 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That consideration of government business order of the day No. 4, Transport Safety Investigation Bill 2002 and No. 5, Transport Safety Investigation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 be postponed until a later hour this day.Question agreed to.Bills6007R16056007Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That this bill be now read a second time.18:16:006007McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—I thank the government for facilitating the time of this speech to enable me to take the New Business Tax System (Consolidation, Value Shifting, Demergers and Other Measures) Bill 2002 through the party's processes and get the necessary approvals. I appreciate that cooperation and the cooperation of my colleague the member for Fowler for allowing me to speak at this time. I am grateful for that.The opposition will be supporting this bill in this House and referring it to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics—as we did with the first tranche of this legislation—because it is an important and complex piece of legislation. The principles are easy to support. They need a bit of consideration, but anybody who has studied the principles that should apply to a tax system, and a business tax system in particular, would welcome and support the principles behind all these measures. The opposition do, and I do on their behalf. But the detail is very complex and there are a number of people in the community with an interest in it who, we feel, should have the opportunity to come before that Senate committee quickly—we do not wish to delay the passage of the legislation overall. The Senate has shown its capacity to deal with matters like this expeditiously and that is what we will seek to do.The New Business Tax System (Consolidation, Value Shifting, Demergers and Other Measures) Bill 2002 addresses a series of business tax reforms arising from the Ralph Review of Business Taxation. It provides a second tranche of provisions regarding consolidations to supplement those contained in the initial bill introduced on 16 May this year. It also introduces a general value shifting regime applying mainly to interests in controlled companies and trusts which are not consolidated. It introduces provisions to provide tax relief for a demerger and makes consequential amendments limiting the source of franking credits available for franking credit trading. The Labor Party has long supported genuine business tax reform in this country. At the time of negotiations over the so-called Ralph reforms, the Labor Party made it clear that we strongly supported the principles underlying the reforms. I was attracted by a quote that the chairman of that report, John Ralph, included in the introduction to his report. He said:Reform needs to be developed within the context of enhancing economic performance, and a well-functioning taxation system must be seen to be operating fairly, efficiently and transparently. It should provide certainty, be as simple as possible and generate compliance costs as low as practicable. The system must have integrity and be neutral as between taxpayers. Importantly, taxpayers must feel that all are paying their fair share and there is equity in the system.Those principles remain a good starting point, a good set of principles on which to approach this issue. They are principles that the opposition supports, but agreeing to the principles is only the first step. As always in the case of taxation legislation, the devil is in the detail. We have seen, for example, people who strongly supported the introduction of the GST who are now strenuously opposed to the manner of its implementation—accounting bodies of impeccable conservative credentials who supported and campaigned for the introduction of the GST now campaigning about the detail and administration of the legislation.At the time of the Ralph reforms, the Labor Party set out the operational guidelines by which they would examine the detail of particular pieces of legislation brought forward by the government. We said that the Ralph business tax reforms should be introduced in a manner that was revenue neutral and preserved the integrity of the tax base. Members will probably recall the exchange of letters between the then shadow Treasurer—now Leader of the Opposition—and the Treasurer, at the time of the Ralph reforms. In that exchange of letters, it was made clear that the Labor Party would support the business tax legislation then before the House on the basis of the guarantee given by the Treasurer in his letter. He said:The government will deliver in full all the business tax changes announced, recognising that any slippage on these measures in the future could expose the government in terms of its commitment to maintaining the integrity of the tax system.We would have been very happy had that letter been implemented and had the Treasurer been as good as his word. Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I am sure you can understand our disappointment at the convoluted, slow and sorry progress made with regard to the balance of the business tax reform legislation in the three years since that exchange of letters. That exchange of letters seemed, at the time, to be a bit of a breakthrough—that we had found a way through the complex processes of reform of business taxation. There is a lot of revenue at stake and, where the principles are broadly agreed, it is very desirable if we can get the opposition and the government to negotiate, come to agreement and say, `Yes, we agree on that package. Let's put it through.' We thought we had that agreement. The exchange of letters appeared to be confirmation that the government was going to proceed on an agreed range of measures. But it has not happened.Some of the measures agreed upon have fallen by the wayside altogether. The others tend to come forward in dribs and drabs in forms that sometimes bear only a passing resemblance to what was originally proposed and in a manner which certainly challenges the revenue neutrality proposition. That is also the case with this package of bills, even though we agree with all the principles in it. That is the context in which this next tranche of measures from the Ralph reforms comes forward. Having set that background, let me turn to the substantive issues, not starting with the most important but proceeding through them.Firstly, I will deal with the question of imputation treatment of exempting entities. The amendments in the bill concerning imputation credits and their treatment are consequential amendments arising from the bills which came into this parliament earlier this year and set out core rules for a new imputation system. These amendments ensure that entities effectively owned by non-residents and tax-exempt entities cannot trade the benefits of the franking credits. That seems to me to be a proposition worthy of support from all members of the House. It is the assessment—on examination, I think it is a correct assessment—that they will have little or no revenue impact. They are sensible and uncontroversial measures and we will support them.Secondly, this bill introduces a new regime to be called the general value shifting regime, which was recommended by the Ralph review, but it does not do it in exactly the manner recommended by Ralph, and I am very interested and a little concerned about some of the variations from the Ralph recommendations. It is one of the things I will want to see the Senate committee examine. The regime applies mainly to interests in companies and trusts that are not consolidated but meet control or common ownership tests. The GVSR—as the regime is called for simplicity—replaces the share value shifting and asset stripping rules currently in the income tax law, which are very complex and a bit of a patchwork. Those who are more expert than I am consider that there are also serious design flaws and that the integrity benefits achieved are uncertain and debatable, as the explanatory memorandum says. Those who have looked at this matter and those with whom I have discussed it would say that, if anything, the explanatory memorandum is an understatement rather than an overstatement. The idea of changing this regime is appropriate and welcome. The intention of the government in this matter is welcome and has our support. Essentially, through the GVSR, it seeks to do the following things: ensure the consistent application of value shifting rules to interests in companies and in fixed and non-fixed trusts; apply a consistent treatment of transactions with the same economic effect through the use of a generalised concept of value shifting transactions and events; and, enhance integrity of the proposed consolidation regime into the capital gains tax rules generally. There is a number of carve-out provisions from the GVSR which, in broad brush terms, we can talk about as carve-outs for low-value transactions for certain small businesses and for interests in entities that enter the proposed consolidation regime. We welcome all those.It is important to note that the explanatory memorandum still draws attention to what it calls a small to moderate increase in compliance costs to taxpayers, depending on whether the current value shifting rules apply to them. Of course each time you see an explanatory memorandum that says that compliance costs are going to go up, you do worry about its impact on individual businesses and businesspeople, even though the smallest businesses will not be affected. It is always a trade-off between revenue, integrity, uniformity and complexity. On balance, the measures seem worthy of support, notwithstanding the problem of compliance cost. The ALP has always supported the principle of this reform. It strengthens the integrity of the tax system and that is one of our top priorities, so we will continue to support it. I criticised the last tranche of the consolidations regime because it was hailed all through the promotional material as a great integrity measure and then at the end it said, `By the way, it's going to cost $1 billion.' Integrity measures are actually supposed to increase the revenue, not reduce it. I will come back to that in a moment.I welcome the fact that the GVSR is expected to result in a gain to the revenue of $480 million over the forward estimate period. It will be a gradually increasing gain, which is what integrity measures should do. I am not in a position to judge whether the assessment is accurate, but it is certainly of the right nature and the curve is going in the right direction, so I welcome that. Although we are happy to give in principle support at this stage, we will require further parliamentary scrutiny of the detail of the proposed regime, particularly with regard to the likely increase in compliance costs. Really, that is the bit we want to look at in the Senate on this matter.Principally, we want the Senate to look at consolidation—and I will come back to that. On the demerger relief, we want to have a look at where it goes beyond some of the Ralph recommendations. Here we want to have a look at compliance costs. I suspect, on balance, that it is not going to be a serious problem before the committee. I am very confident that we will come back with a recommendation that continues the support for the measure both in general and, as far as I can tell, in detail. I think the Senate should give people a chance to come forward and comment, particularly on the compliance cost measure.The matter in this bill that has had some publicity is that of demerger relief. The provisions in the bill to provide tax relief for demergers arise from another Ralph recommendation. The provisions aim to ensure that there is no taxing event for a restructuring that leaves members in the same economic position as they were before the restructuring. That is a correct principle; I support that. But, as I implied earlier, this is the circumstance where the provisions go significantly beyond the Ralph recommendations in a couple of places. I want to refer to that and indicate that that is a matter which we will wish to have explained before the Senate committee, if the Senate agree to send it there—which I will be recommending—and I hope they do. On the basis of their past performance with regard to similar bills, I expect they will, but it is not a matter over which I have individual control. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Not any more, anyway.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—If they do, I welcome that. Whether anybody has control over it is another matter. The parliamentary secretary's interjection is probably correct, but let's not go down that path. We could have some fun, but we would not advance the cause of the debate about the bill or our political system very far. The current provisions go beyond the Ralph recommendations in some ways. For example, with regard to extending tax relief to the entity itself, Ralph recommended relief for members only. On allowing relief for the non-widely held entities and their members, Ralph recommended relief for members of widely held entities only. That is a variation that may be driven by the fact that we do not have the entities regime in place which Ralph had assumed would be; nevertheless, it is something I wish to have examined. Ralph also recommended that precapital gains tax interests should be valued according to their market value immediately after they were acquired as a new interest on the demerger.On the face of it, that sounds right to me. I am therefore a little surprised that the bill proposes to preserve the precapital gains tax status of assets, but I will wait and hear what the case for that is. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration might want to deal with it in his reply but, if he is wise, he probably will not. It is a matter that we will want to ask some questions about on an appropriate occasion. In addition, the proposed legislation does not cover linkages with consolidations nor include planned additional integrity rules for demergers of non-widely held entities. The ALP have consistently supported the principle of this reform; we continue to do so. The economic rationale is sound. The principle that we should ensure that tax does not unnecessarily drive the choice of structure in which a business chooses to operate is a correct principle; we support it. I am just concerned about those variations. I am also concerned—and there may be a link between these two, which is one of the things I want to look at—that the revenue cost of this measure is listed as `unquantifiable', apparently due to the difficulty in estimating the extent of behavioural change induced by the measure. I understand that, and I realise that, to some extent, that must arise because, without the concessions provided in the bill, some demergers would not go ahead. That is a sensible point, but it is not very often that we get the revenue assessments based on that commonly espoused thesis that there is no cost to the revenue because, if we did not make the tax change, the activity would not occur. We want to have a look at that, and we want to have a look at whether there is any link between the cost to the revenue and the variations from the Ralph recommendations. We support the principle but, given that the measures go substantially beyond what was proposed in the Ralph review, it is only reasonable that we should seek some indication of the scale of these extra concessions, especially since several high- profile, high value demergers are regarded as being contingent on these measures—most notably, in the public debate, that relating to Western Mining Corporation. If, as I expect, the Western Mining Corporation demerger is only held up for the reasons of the principles that I outlined before, then there is no reason why this bill should, in any way, be delayed to hold up that market-driven measure. I note, for example, that a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Jane Counsel states:Without the tax relief, potential acquirers of either WMC's alumina or minerals arms could have faced a capital gains bill of up to $1 billion.We do not want to see a billion dollar tax bill for what is merely a restructuring, but we also do not want to see the revenue put unnecessarily at risk in manners that were not envisaged by Ralph when he—or, speaking of the committee collectively, they—recommended these changes. That is something we want to look at. I foreshadow that we will be asking for further detail on the costing of this measure and a further justification for the departures from the Ralph recommendations before we can be confident about how it too will operate in practice.I turn now to consolidations. In the last session of the parliament, the government introduced the first tranche of legislation on consolidations, which is another key measure from the Ralph review. It foreshadowed then that there would be two further tranches of legislation introduced this year to complete the measure. The consolidations measures will allow groups of wholly owned entities to choose to be taxed as a single entity rather than on an entity-by-entity basis. The first tranche of legislation provided a broad review of the measure and also set out ongoing rules for joining an existing consolidated group. As expected, the second tranche, contained in this bill, sets out transitional and formational cost-setting rules for the consolidated group and also deals with some foreign entity tax issues. However, what was not expected was that the government would already need to revisit a number of the ongoing rules set out in the initial tranche. In particular, I note that the cost-setting rules have been tightened up in this tranche for the core rules, for an entity joining a consolidated group and for entities leaving a consolidated group. I also understand that there will be yet more integrity measures tightening cost-setting rules in the third tranche of legislation, to be introduced later this year. I welcome these modifications, which address some of the revenue integrity concerns pursued by the opposition in scrutinising the first tranche in both houses and through the Senate committee process. However, it constitutes an extraordinary backdown by the government. After all, it is modifying its own legislation only three months after the initial bill was introduced and before it has even come into effect. There can be no doubt that these modifications have come about thanks to the rigour of parliamentary scrutiny—and that is the parliament acting as it should. It emphasises yet again the critical importance of allowing time for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of such complex legislation.As I indicated when I spoke on the first tranche, the ALP has consistently supported the principles of consolidation to minimise compliance costs and strengthen the integrity of the tax system. However, the experience from the first tranche shows the importance of constructive scrutiny for such complex legislation, and so I will be recommending to my colleagues that they seek to refer this second tranche to a Senate legislation committee in order to examine the detail. We are happy to cooperate with the government, as I said, to do this in a timely fashion, but let us not forget that this reform was first announced 3½ years ago. The fact that it is still being debated now, nearly two months after what will count as the starting date, is entirely due to the government's tardiness in bringing the legislation before the parliament. So we are not going to be pressured by a sudden urgency about passing the legislation; we will hold fast to our duty of applying proper scrutiny and we will hold fast to our position that the measures should not come into effect as a whole until all three tranches of the legislation have been through the parliament—but we will not be seeking to delay the bill on a procedural basis. After all, given our experience with the progress of the Ralph reforms, we can hardly be expected to accept the subsequent bills on an act of faith.I would like to return to the issue of the revenue impacts of these business tax reforms. As I indicated previously, Labor's support for the Ralph reform package was always on the clear condition of revenue neutrality. This was because we indicated then that we cannot accept a reduction in business taxation at the expense of individuals and families, who will bear the brunt of a GST, or the use of a budget surplus to fund business tax reforms. Yet we are still waiting for the Treasurer to release the state of the balance sheet on the Ralph business tax reforms to judge if this initial agreement has been met. I note that the Treasurer has now announced a new round of prospective business tax reform in the area of international tax. So I say to the Treasurer: if you seriously want bipartisan cooperation on these important issues, when are you going to front up about how much they are really costing? We continue to be open to being convinced on the merits of expenditure proposals in business tax reform to improve national economic welfare. However, we will continue to weigh their relative priority carefully against all other priorities, both from within that sector and more broadly across the whole of the economy. This is a crucial point. After all, we often hear it recognised when discussing expenditure measures that there are always many, many worthy causes for the spending of public money—always far more worthy causes than money to spend on them. So each and every spending choice, whether by direct government payment or by the government deciding to offer tax concessions, must be considered with equal rigour within that framework. This applies just as much to special incentives, grants or concessions to business interests as it does to calls for spending from other sectors in the community. All too often we have the same advocates demanding cuts to social spending on the one hand and spending increases on specialised corporate assistance on the other. For example, we have recently seen a coalition of big business interests seeking to extend statutory effective life caps for long life assets across the board. This is an extraordinary proposal given the very explicit trade-off in the Ralph reforms between ending special depreciation allowances and instead instituting a lower company tax rate. We repeat that we do not support particular business interests who want the lower rate and still want to get the concessions back through special concessions and special deals.We want a tax system that is good for the whole Australian businesses environment. We are not about particular business interests but about an economic environment that is good, effective and efficient and within which businesses can operate. It is time that we focused on the kind of whole-of-economy scrutiny that we are entitled to expect from the Treasurer when we look at these major tax reform measures that come before the parliament. In conclusion, as I have indicated previously, the opposition will support this bill in this House. We continue to support the principles underlying the measures in the bill. However, given the complexity, and in particular the revenue implications, I will be seeking further parliamentary scrutiny of the bill. I note that the government has proposed some further amendments to this bill in the last 24 hours, which I expect the parliamentary secretary will move when we get to that stage. Given that we intend to refer the bill to a Senate committee, we will not hold up the passage of the bill because of those amendments but will reserve our judgment on them until we get a chance to give them detailed scrutiny in the other chamber. I thank the government, once again, and the House for facilitating my speaking at this time on the bill. I indicate that, subject to those matters of scrutiny to which I have referred, the opposition will be supporting the legislation.18:42:006013Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I too support this legislation, the New Business Tax System (Consolidation, Value Shifting, Demergers and Other Measures) Bill 2002. It is complex and it is large. The explanatory memorandum and the legislation itself are substantial. The bill is a further continuance of the government's proposal to upgrade and change corporate taxation. I am pleased that the government has moved ahead, because the calls for tax reform from businesses are continuing. Businesses have completely rejected the proposals for the tax valuing method proposed as part of the Ralph inquiry but they still want and are still requesting of the government a highly competitive, transparent, easily administered and sound tax system for corporations and business. This sounds simple but it is hard to do. Everybody is out there trying to get their edge, wherever possible, in the tax regime. Their whole purpose is to minimise costs, and taxation is a burden that all businesses wear. All businesses seek to pay what is lawfully required of them but not more. So we have this constant pressure for a simpler tax system but one which is fair to all and which allows Australian businesses to be competitive.I would have to say that this legislation is pretty demanding for a layperson, but it is broken up into a number of areas which I intend to deal with one by one and then look at what this legislation does overall. I think there are a number of factors that need to be weighed up: the complexity and clarity of the legislation, its relative merits and fairness when one weighs up the large number of small businesses that are taxed compared with the smaller number of large businesses, and whether there is fairness and equity in the system.The first part of the bill deals with the implementation of the consolidation regime. This will cost approximately $1.17 billion over a period stretching out to 2005-06, and it relates largely to the transitional concessions which allow groups to use their losses faster than is allowed under the current law. I have read the details of this bill and I know that there are a number of technical provisions that cover cost-setting rules, formation rules, transitional rules and the removal of lost transfer concessions. I would have thought that, for that amount of money, we could have a pretty big impact on what is happening in business. I remain to be convinced—even though this was part of the government's reform provisions—that the impact will be as great as expected. Consolidation applies to a limited number of companies and the cost is high. I have yet to be convinced that the overall benefits will be significant in the Australian economy. The second part of the legislation deals with a simplified imputation system, consequential amendments and exempting and former exempting entity provisions. This provision commenced on 1 July 2000, and it is a simplified imputation system. It will have no revenue impact. It is designed to reduce compliance costs incurred by businesses by providing for simpler processes and increased flexibility. All I can say is: I hope so. I shudder when I read the words `simplification' and `saving costs'. I see that the member for Curtin is in the chamber, and I think that she shares my healthy excitement with these words. Usually when we see the outcome, in moving around the electorate talking to business groups, `simplification', `improved compliance processes' and similar words usually mean increased complexity and reduced flexibility. 83PBishop, Julie, MPMs Julie Bishop—That is the issue.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—That is the issue: does this legislation fulfil the stated goals? Often the stated goals are not met, and we have significantly weighty legislation, backed up by tables and charts and only a few concrete examples, which makes it hard to administer when you are dealing with self-assessment. On a self-assessment basis the client has to be absolutely sure that they understand the process that is in the mind of the drafter. I do share with the opposition spokesman the hope that the Senate committee does do a good job on this and does bring some simplification and increased flexibility into this legislation.The second provision is the general value shifting regime. There is expected to be an increase in revenue, and it is estimated to be something like $450 million to $500 million over the years to 2005-06. The compliance cost impact will be small, at least initially, and there will be costs associated with coming to terms with the new legislative regime. In some instances, the low value transaction exclusions and safe harbours in the new law will mean a reduction in compliance cost for some taxpayers compared with the existing law. Also, those entities that consolidate will not be subject to the general value shifting regime. Then we come to demerger relief. The financial impact is unquantifiable, but there is shareholder capital gains tax relief. There is a capital gains tax exemption at the corporate level, and there is shareholder relief from dividend rules, subject to an integrity rule. So there are factors with the demerger process, and I will deal with that shortly. That really does amount to the processes of the legislation that we are looking at tonight. The finetuning of the new tax regime goes on. The Assistant Treasurer, Senator Coonan, has revealed some changes that have caused concern in some areas, but I note that Frank Drenth, of the Corporate Tax Association, has said that he welcomed the legislation, which tightens generous transitional rules that could have allowed significant windfall gains relating to trading stock, pre-capital gains tax assets and goodwill when companies move to the new regime. He is pleased that there has been a tightening of that process. A spokesman for Ernst and Young, Tony Stolarek, said that `the increased integrity measures in the consolidation laws were necessary to ensure consolidation stayed within revenue forecasts.' That is reasonable.The tightening process is fine. I would like to see the government and the minister actively making sure that the reforms give adequate details, protect the revenue and achieve the goals of simplicity that we are looking for. The taxation reforms that we are looking at here fall into a number of groups. I intend to deal with them as they arise. First of all, the demerger proposals are creating a lot of attention. Coles Myer now has an opportunity, if it wishes, to restructure and spin off its non-food businesses. There is comment in the financial press about whether John Fletcher will make sure, as he said he would, that the restructuring takes place if the company desires. There is a limitation on the way that can be done, because there is obviously a huge penalty in the application of capital gains tax to new entities if demergers take place.I am very interested in the way this is drafted. It appears that there is favouritism towards the large corporations rather than a capital gains penalty through changes in status for small businesses or even for individuals. We are very rigorous in chasing capital gains that may be made through holdings in foreign companies and demutualisation decisions taken offshore, and in chasing the dollars for individual taxpayers, but here we seem to be providing a comfort for large corporations. Somehow or other—I am not able to quite put my hand on it—I think there is an inconsistency in the way in which we approach these issues. We tend to favour that which is sought by large corporations in Australia but we ignore the benefits that should be accruing to smaller taxpayers or smaller businesses.I also note that the Western Mining Corporation plan to split their alumina operations from their nickel and copper businesses later this year. That was in the statement in May, although there appears to be some confusion as the time approaches. In some reports, Western Mining are saying that they are not sure whether the advantages first spelled out are what they expected. There are a number of other companies that are looking at a demerger. There is an interesting concept whereby CSR and the Mayne Group have indicated they want to hive off their various businesses and to not suffer a capital gains penalty for doing so. Surely just the basic restructuring of an organisation should not bring about a capital gains penalty, even if that restructuring seems to propose to the market a better result and it means that companies can be more effectively managed and earn in a much more realistic way.In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 17 August, Jane Counsel said:Some corporate tax lawyers describe the legislation as being “better than Christmas” because it will prevent companies from being taxed on capital gains generated when the parent group sells or spins out 80 per cent or more of itself. In Western Mining's case, the relief will enable the company to finally move ahead with a planned spin-off of its core alumina business as a defence against a hostile $10.20 share takeover proposal from its US aluminium partner, Alcoa.That is beneficial to Australia, as far as I can see. There are other reports that seem to indicate that there is not as much enthusiasm for the demerger as originally thought. John Morschell said that the conglomerate would split into two separately listed Australian entities by mid-year 2003 but only if parliament passes legislation this year to give capital gains tax relief to investors in such demergers. He said: `No legislation, no demerger. If they do not change the law, it will just cost too much.' I would like to delve into the new value-shifting regime to see whether it really does propose changes. I see reports from the Institute of Taxation that it is not quite all that it is held up to be, but I will watch the developments as evidence is taken before Senate committees and we move into fine analysis of what the new value shifting regime will mean. The new value shifting rules require action along the following lines. The rules apply to any of the operations or transactions. They apply to the methods they may use to affect the consequences, to their record-keeping processes and whether they adequately capture and retain the necessary information, and to the alteration of rights attached to existing entities or loan interest in companies or trusts. It is all about whether or not arms-length and proper values are held.I conclude by saying: big focus on big business. For the small business area, we have to look at the proposals that the government has introduced for taxation advantages on the processes small businesses use on end-of-year taxation and the value of their products. Whether or not the consolidations that have occurred there adequately compensate small business, I am unsure, but I do think the focus on large business needs to be balanced. I look forward to the further refinement of this legislation, because I am sure it is inevitable.19:00:006015Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The New Business Tax System (Consolidation, Value Shifting, Demergers and Other Measures) Bill 2002 represents another important step in the reform of Australia's business tax system. As such, it seems wholly appropriate to reflect on the historical background to the new business tax system and the nature of the reforms implemented by the Howard government over the past four years. The system and the reforms that brought it into being were the result of some of the most intensive and frank consultations between Australian business and the Commonwealth in the history of our nation's public policy. This included a small business consultative committee, the Review of Business Taxation conducted by John Ralph and the recently instituted Board of Taxation.One initiative—the practice of releasing exposure drafts of legislation—has afforded the opportunity to Australia's firms to comment on matters that affect them, their employees and their investors. But why is this important? After all, the previous government seemed unconvinced that consultation with Australian business was a necessary factor in policy development—that is, outside of the obligatory summits of the 1980s, the veritable economic show trials where Australia's producers were expected to take their seats at the back and keep their mouths shut. It is important because, without Australia's businesses—small, medium and large—this nation would have little to offer. It is Australia's businesses that put the clothes on our backs, the wages in our pockets and the goods on our shelves. That applies to government as well, for without the economic growth generated by private firms this place would be little more than a dead-letter office. And all of this, it must be said, is in the pursuit of profit—the return on capital invested.Perhaps it is timely, in the context of this bill, to reflect on the reforms to business taxation in the context of the corporate world more generally and the impact of intended equity and efficiency improvements. The corporate world, particularly in the United States but also here in Australia, has been taking a battering lately. Corporate collapses, some scandalous practices and highly questionable corporate behaviour have made corporate governance a topical current issue receiving much media coverage. There is an interesting piece in this week's Bulletin magazine, which seeks to follow the trend of the state as corporate regulator, comparing the government's approach with that of Labor. Tonight is not the time to highlight everything the government have done in corporate law reform; suffice it to say that our ongoing corporate law economic review program has provided appropriate laws to deal with corporate governance issues, and the government have provided the funding to ensure that the regulator can enforce those laws. The task is ongoing but we have struck a balance, and I suggest that we ought to keep it all in perspective.Labor is desperately trying to make political capital and make itself relevant in this debate. The ideological Left is getting quite carried away, railing against the evils of corporate power and championing wealth redistribution, tighter regulations on business and bigger, hugely interventionist government. It is becoming increasingly excited at the prospect of the impact of these high profile corporate collapses, and it is hoping to create a popular revolt against corporate power. And all the while, it fails to recognise that the public continue to live in the world of corporate Australia or to appreciate that many decent people work in and run corporations. Corporate Australia does far more in building wealth and improving lives than it does to mar them. While there have been corporate scandals in the United States and here—and there will continue to be scandals—and our government leaders have quite rightly called for business leaders to exert moral leadership at this time, that is not to suggest that a free market in itself is to blame or that it should produce its own morality. We could have a very interesting debate about a book that was published recently in the US: Capitalism and Commerce. It meets head-on the current concerns about the morality of the markets in the midst of corporate scandals and falling share prices. The author, Younkins, puts the moral case for capitalism and says that the capitalist system is good not only for the wallet but also for the soul. Capitalism, he writes:... not only can generate enormous wealth but can also create an environment in which morality and virtue can flourish ... and that morality is the ethic of individual responsibility and accountable free choices.In fact, he makes a pretty strong case for free markets, for free trade, for the corporation and, indeed, for business as a noble calling.This government has recognised that there has to be a balance between breaking the shackles that have, until recently, held down our national living standards, our employment levels and our entrepreneurial spirit, and an appropriate level of state regulation. In that context, the government is entitled to pride itself on what it has achieved in creating an internationally competitive tax environment in Australia and drawing the attention of and investment from those outside our borders. We pride ourselves on reducing company tax from 36 per cent to 30 per cent, halving the capital gains tax burden for individuals, simplifying and extending the existing small business capital gains tax rollover relief and retirement exemptions—and I could go on. But we take pleasure in supporting this bill which takes these reforms further in four parts: a consolidation regime, a simplified imputations system, value shifting and loss integrity, and relief for corporate demergers. The consolidation regime reform was first flagged in the tax reform proposals of 1998. Consolidation in this context refers to the concept where companies in a group which are wholly owned and which satisfy certain other conditions may elect to be treated as a single entity for tax purposes. Consolidation represents a much more comprehensive system which will eventually replace the current grouping rules. In order to deal with outstanding matters associated with the New Business Tax System (Consolidation) Bill, which was passed by the parliament in the last hours of the budget session, this legislation introduces cost-setting rules for the formation of consolidation groups, and those rules have implications for the basic case rules where a single entity enters into an existing consolidated group. There are a number of other amendments but, given the time, I will not go into them. Regarding the simplified imputation system, the legislation before the House makes consequential amendments to those provisions of the tax law known as the exempting and former exempting company provisions, further to the imputation bill that was also passed by the parliament at the same time as the consolidation bill.I now turn to the issue of value shifting and loss integrity. Unlike the two previous areas of interest, these particular amendments are not consequential. Instead, this measure will introduce a general value-shifting regime applying principally to interests in controlled companies and trusts that are not consolidated. The existing capital gains laws will be strengthened by this measure. Furthermore, under the loss integrity reforms, assets will be valued globally in calculating unrealised losses, thereby further reducing compliance costs.Finally, I turn to the subject of demerger relief. Demergers are a form of structural readjustment for corporations in which a corporate or trust group splits into two or more entities or groups. In such cases, the underlying owners of the head entity directly control the demerged entities or groups. The bill provides for a capital gains tax rollover of a head entity of a demerger group; a capital gains tax exemption for certain capital gains or losses made by the members of a demerger group where at least 80 per cent of the demerger group's interests in a demerger subsidiary are transferred to the owners of the head entity; and an exemption from the existing dividend rules for the head entity's owners, subject to an integrity rule. These rollovers and exemptions apply to demergers as from 1 July this year.This particular reform will ensure that tax considerations are not a barrier to this particular form of corporate restructure. The House would be aware that corporate Australia awaits this particular reform. In particular, the shareholders of WMC will have the opportunity, should this legislation pass, to vote on the planned split-up of WMC—for the tax relief will enable that company to move ahead, finally, with the planned spin-off of its alumina business—in the face of a hostile takeover proposal from its US aluminium partner, Alcoa. Without the tax relief, potential acquirers of the spin-off businesses would be lumped with a capital gains tax bill—in that case, estimated at up to $1 billion. In concluding, I point out that all the reforms contained in this bill are improvements to business taxation in Australia and, accordingly, I commend the bill to the House.19:09:006017Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—in reply—I would like to thank the members for Fraser, Curtin and Mitchell for their speeches in relation to the New Business Tax System (Consolidation, Value Shifting, Demergers and Other Measures) Bill 2002. I am hopeful, given the importance of the measures contained in this bill to all sectors of the business community, that the government will receive the support of the House and, indeed, the other place in relation to this particular legislation. However, prior to the vote taking place, I would like to take the opportunity to sum up the tenor of issues raised during the debate on these measures. I will also be discussing some amendments the government will be moving in relation to this bill in respect of the demerger measures.The member for Fraser broadly supported the principles contained in this legislation, and I thank him for that on behalf of the government. In his speech, he referred to value-shifting variations from the Ralph recommendations and also the compliance costs. Notwithstanding that, he indicated his support. The government does welcome the support of the member for Fraser for this very important integrity measure which is complementary to consolidation. The general value shifting rules were modified, following discussions with business, and the modifications address deficiencies in the current tax treatment of value shifting and provide comparable value-shifting integrity for entities outside consolidation to that achieved within consolidation. The compliance costs associated with this measure are a consequence of business coming to terms with the new legislation only, and no new notification or specific compliance costs associated with this measure are foreseen.In his speech, the member for Fraser accused the government of backing down on integrity measures. I just want to point out to him and to reassure him that the revenue protection measures are not a backdown but a proactive move by the government to prevent unintended tax benefits to groups during the transition to consolidation. The member for Fraser also referred generally to taxation legislation and claimed that the devil is in the detail. With respect to the concerns expressed by the member relating to implementation, I would note the extraordinary level of consultation on these measures. The purpose of this consultation is to ensure a smooth implementation of these measures and no surprises in the measures. The government is committed to maintaining the momentum of tax reform, and the timetable for reform was outlined by the Assistant Treasurer in May this year. This timetable was welcomed by businesses and provides greater certainty and a manageable pace of reform. The member for Fraser referred to the fact that this legislation is being brought before the parliament in a number of tranches. On passage of this bill, the consolidation package, combined with the government's detailed press release of 27 June this year on revenue protection measures, will be sufficient to enable taxpayers to determine whether to consolidate. Some further legislation will be introduced in the spring session, giving effect to the government's press release on the revenue protection measures. The legislation will also cover consequential and technical amendments and aspects of the regime affecting relatively few taxpayers—that is, life insurance and further international aspects.The member for Fraser, who has now returned to the chamber, mentioned complexity. Consolidation is a very significant tax reform for Australian corporate groups and will assist in the simplification of business structures, reduce ongoing compliance and administration costs, improve business efficiency and strengthen the integrity of the tax system by preventing inappropriate outcomes being generated through intragroup dealings. The government has given all businesses more time to prepare for consolidation. To support this extension of time, the government has agreed to a request from small business that existing grouping rules be retained for an additional 12 months following the commencement of consolidation. I am pleased, in particular, to reassure the honourable member for Mitchell in view of his comments. Groups are able to elect to consolidate at the time they lodge their first consolidated tax return. This effectively allows up to 18 months or more for taxpayers to decide whether to consolidate, with effect from 1 July 2002, and to complete the necessary arrangements.Transitional concessions that allow groups to retain existing asset cost bases and use certain transferred losses over three years have also been extended and will now be available for groups that consolidate before 1 July 2004. The government, as I mentioned previously, has consulted extensively with the business community. The tax office has also released extensive guideline documents to assist business to better understand and prepare for the measure. It also ought to be recognised that consolidation is optional, it is not compulsory and will generally only be relevant to the relatively few small businesses that operate through corporate group structures.The member for Mitchell outlined benefits to businesses arising from consolidation. His speech is certainly welcomed. There will be very considerable compliance savings to consolidated groups from consolidation after a group is formed. Consolidation will assist simplification of business structures and reduce ongoing compliance and administration costs.The bill introduces a number of important business tax reform measures which originate from the recommendations of the Ralph Review of Business Taxation in A tax system redesigned. The bill contains the second tranche of consolidation legislation, introduces a general value shifting regime for groups that do not consolidate, introduces tax relief for corporate and trust demergers and provides consequential amendments to the simplified imputation system. Extensive consultation has taken place. I am very pleased to advise the House that the business community very strongly supports what the government is doing. The consolidation regime delivered by this bill represents one of the most significant changes to the taxation of corporate groups and will ensure greater flexibility and reduce ongoing compliance costs for Australian businesses as well as address concerns in relation to the integrity of our tax system. This bill, in conjunction with the first tranche of the consolidation legislation which has since received royal assent, ensures there is sufficient information for businesses to be confident in determining whether to enter consolidation and it provides the mechanisms to do so. In particular, the measures dealing with the cost setting rules and concessional transitional cost setting rules for groups forming a consolidated group are critical to such an assessment. The bill also introduces important measures dealing with some international aspects of consolidation, including the transfer and pooling of group foreign tax credits and attribution accounts maintained by entities with interests in controlled foreign companies or foreign income funds on both entry and exit from a consolidated group. The general value shifting regime introduced by this bill represents an important integrity measure designed to prevent the manipulation of tax rules by shifting value between assets by closely held entities that are not part of the same consolidated group. This new regime is complementary to the consolidation regime and will reproduce the structural value shifting integrity achieved by the consolidation regime to those groups outside consolidation. The final important business tax measure in this bill introduces provisions to provide tax relief for corporate or trust demergers. The tax relief will apply to only genuine demergers and is achieved by requiring underlying ownership to be maintained pre and post a merger and requiring the head entity to demerge at least 80 per cent of its ownership in the demerging entity. Providing tax relief for demergers will increase business efficiency by allowing greater flexibility in restructuring a business and ensuring tax considerations are not an impediment to such restructures. This will provide an overall benefit to the economy and enhance the competitiveness of Australia's business sector through greater opportunities to increase shareholder value by creating more efficient business structures. The demerging amendments proposed by the government will facilitate the provision of tax relief for demergers. The main changes proposed by the government include the recognition of an additional method by which a demerger may occur, the provision of more flexibility in identifying the appropriate head entity of a demerger group, the provision of a new limited exemption to the maintenance of underlying ownership requirement to recognise certain financial instruments issued by a listed public company or listed widely held trust. A number of the amendments are as a result of business representations after the introduction of this bill and as part of the ongoing consultation process. Other amendments are of a technical and clarifying nature. The member for Fraser referred to the revenue implications of demergers. As reported in the 2002-03 budget, a reliable estimate of the review impact of the demerger provisions cannot be provided. This is because there is no reliable information of demerger activity tax base issues and a number of possible positive and negative impacts on revenue. While there is some expected revenue cost associated with the deferral of capital gains tax on the demerger event, examples of positive impacts on revenue include shareholders selling shares they own in the demerged entity earlier than otherwise and benefits flowing from efficiency gains. There were a number of other issues raised which I would have liked to have addressed in this particular debate. But, given the time and the fact that the adjournment of the House is approaching and the desire to have the House pass this legislation and also deal with the consideration in detail prior to 7.30, I will desist from that temptation. I would, therefore, commend the legislation to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 6020Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 19:21:006020Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) to (53):(1) Schedule 16, item 1, page 269 (lines 31 to 36), omit subsection (3).(2) Schedule 16, item 1, page 271 (after line 15), at the end of subsection (1), add:Note: An entity may be a member of one or more demerger groups.(3) Schedule 16, item 1, page 271 (after line 28), after subsection (4), insert: (5) A company or trust (the first company or trust) that would, apart from this subsection, be a member of a demerger group is not a member of the demerger group if: (a) the first company or trust owns, either alone or together with another company or trust that would, apart from this subsection, be a member of the *demerger group, more than 20% but less than 80% of the *ownership interests in a *listed public company or *listed widely held trust; and (b) the listed public company or listed widely held trust chooses that the first company or trust not be a member of the demerger group.(4) Schedule 16, item 1, page 271 (line 29), omit “(5)”, substitute “(6)”.(5) Schedule 16, item 1, page 272 (line 3), omit “(6)”, substitute “(7)”.(6) Schedule 16, item 1, page 272 (lines 14 and 15), omit “(taking into account the number, nature and value of those interests)”.(7) Schedule 16, item 1, page 272 (lines 19 and 20), omit “(taking into account the number, nature and value of those interests)”.(8) Schedule 16, item 1, page 272 (after line 23), after subparagraph (ii), insert: (iii) the demerged entity issues sufficient new ownership interests in itself with the result that owners of original interests in the head entity own at least 80% of the total ownership interests in the demerged entity; or(9) Schedule 16, item 1, page 272 (line 24), omit “(iii)”, substitute “(iv)”.(10) Schedule 16, item 1, page 272 (lines 24 and 25), omit “results in subparagraphs (i) and (ii)”, substitute “processes referred to in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii)”.(11) Schedule 16, item 1, page 272 (lines 26 and 27), omit “their total ownership interests in another member of the group”, substitute “the total ownership interests owned by members of the demerger group in another member of the group”.(12) Schedule 16, item 1, page 272 (line 33), after “new interest”, insert “and nothing else”.(13) Schedule 16, item 1, page 272 (line 36), after “new interest”, insert “and nothing else”.(14) Schedule 16, item 1, page 273 (line 8), before “more”, insert “it is reasonable for the head entity to assume that”.(15) Schedule 16, item 1, page 273 (lines 9 and 10), omit “(taking into account their number, nature and value)”.(16) Schedule 16, item 1, page 273 (line 17), omit “subsections (2) and (3)”, substitute “subsection (2)”.(17) Schedule 16, item 1, page 273 (after line 33), after the example, insert:Note: Acquiring new interests by an owner of original interests may include the allocation of the owner's entitlement to new interests to a nominee:· to sell on the owner's behalf; or· to hold pending the owner being located.(18) Schedule 16, item 1, page 273 (line 34) to page 274 (line 14), omit subsections (2) and (3), substitute: (2) Each owner (an original owner) of original interests in the *head entity of the *demerger group must: (a) *acquire, under the *demerger, the same proportion, or as nearly as practicable the same proportion, of new interests in the *demerged entity as the original owner owned in the head entity just before the demerger; and (b) just after the demerger, have the same proportionate total *market value of *ownership interests in the head entity and demerged entity as the original owner owned in the head entity just before the demerger.Note 1: There is an exception: see section 125-75.Note 2: Dual listed company voting shares are not treated as ownership interests: see section 125-60.Note 3: Fractional interests will generally not affect your ability to choose a roll-over.Example: To continue the example from subsection (1), Company A concludes, given the circumstances of the demerger, that the market values of Peter's and the other shareholders' shares in A and B are expected to be in proportion with their original interests in Company A, and advises the shareholders of this position.(19) Schedule 16, item 1, page 274 (line 15), omit “(4)”, substitute “(3)”.(20) Schedule 16, item 1, page 274 (line 16), omit “subsections (2) and (3)”, substitute “subsection (2)”.(21) Schedule 16, item 1, page 274 (lines 21 to 24), omit the note, substitute:Example: An anticipated reasonable approximation of market values of ownership interests may include:· valuations provided to shareholders in scheme documents;· the price selected for use under a sale facility; and may be made by reference to long-term value.(22) Schedule 16, item 1, page 274 (line 26), omit “(5)”, substitute “(4)”.(23) Schedule 16, item 1, page 274 (after line 28), before subsection (6), insert:Exception: roll-over available under another provision (5) Circumstances where an owner of original interests can obtain a roll-over under a provision of this Act outside this Division for all of the CGT events that happened to the owner's original interests under the circumstances cannot be a demerger.Note: An owner might be able to obtain a roll-over for the CGT events under Subdivision 124-E, 124-G, 124-H or 124-M.(24) Schedule 16, item 1, page 275 (lines 1 to 22), omit subsection (7), substitute:Meaning of demerging entity (7) An entity that is a member of a *demerger group just before the *CGT event referred to in section 125-155 happens is a demerging entity if, under a *demerger that happens to the group: (a) the entity (either alone or together with other members of the demerger group)*dispose of at least 80% of their total *ownership interests in another member of the demerger group to owners of original interests in the *head entity of the demerger group; or (b) at least 80% of the total ownership interests of that entity and of other members of the demerger group in another member of the demerger group end and new interests are issued to owners of original interests in the head entity; orNote: CGT event C2 and CGT event C3 are the only relevant CGT events. (c) the demerged entity issues sufficient new ownership interests in itself with the result that owners of original interests in the head entity own at least 80% of the total ownership interests in the demerged entity; or (d) some combination of the processes referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) happens with the effect that members of the demerger group stop owning at least 80% of the total ownership interests owned by members of the demerger group in another member of the group.(25) Schedule 16, item 1, page 275 (line 23), omit the heading to section 125-75, substitute:125-75 Exceptions to subsection 125-70(2)(26) Schedule 16, item 1, page 275 (after line 23), before subsection (1), insert:Employee share schemes(27) Schedule 16, item 1, page 275 (lines 24 and 25), omit “the requirement in subsection 125-70(2) is met”, substitute “the requirements in subsection 125-70(2) are met”.(28) Schedule 16, item 1, page 275 (line 27), omit “their number, nature and value”, substitute “either or both of their number and value”.(29) Schedule 16, item 1, page 275 (lines 31 and 32), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) is: (i) a *qualifying share or a *qualifying right *acquired under an *employee share scheme; or (ii) a *share acquired under a *scheme to which section 26AAC of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 applies; and(30) Schedule 16, item 1, page 276 (after line 5), at the end of section 125-75, add:Adjusting instruments (4) In working out whether the requirements in subsection 125-70(2) are met, disregard each of the *ownership interests described in subsection (5) (adjusting instruments) if, just before the *demerger, those interests represented not more than 10%, or such greater percentage (not exceeding 17%) as is prescribed, of the ownership interests in the entity. (5) An *ownership interest in a *listed public company or a *listed widely held trust that is the *head entity of a *demerger group is disregarded under subsection (4) if: (a) the adjusting instrument was issued on terms that ensure that its value is not adversely affected by an *arrangement undertaken by the company or trust in relation to other ownership interests in the company or trust; and (b) if the adjusting instrument can be converted into an ordinary *share in the company or an ordinary unit in the trust, any conversion will occur on a basis: (i) that is set out in the terms of the issue of the instrument; and (ii) that is adjusted to take into account a capital reduction or a capital reconstruction; and (c) before conversion, the owner of the adjusting instrument does not have a right to participate in distributions of profit or capital except as set out in the terms of the issue of the instrument; and (d) the adjusting instrument deals with the effect of a *demerger that happens to the demerger group on the value of the instrument.Example: Some examples of adjusting instruments are:· convertible preference shares, including reset preference shares;· convertible notes;· partly paid shares where the paid-up amount is adjusted to reflect a capital reduction.Additional exceptions (6) The regulations may provide that, in working out whether the requirements in subsection 125-70(2) are met, other *ownership interests of a kind specified in the regulations are to be disregarded if, just before the *demerger, those interests represented not more than a prescribed percentage of the ownership interests in the entity. (7) However, the total percentage of *ownership interests to be disregarded under this section must not exceed 20% of the ownership interests in the entity.(31) Schedule 16, item 1, page 276 (line 21), omit “Note”, substitute “Note 1”.(32) Schedule 16, item 1, page 276 (after line 22), after the note, insert:Note 2: The head entity or the demerging entity may advise you of the proportions.(33) Schedule 16, item 1, page 276 (line 30), omit “125-70(3)”, substitute “125-70(2)”.(34) Schedule 16, item 1, page 277 (lines 17 and 18), omit “a reasonable”, substitute “an anticipated reasonable”.(35) Schedule 16, item 1, page 277 (line 20), omit “a reasonable”, substitute “an anticipated reasonable”.(36) Schedule 16, item 1, page 277 (after line 31), at the end of section 125-80, add: (8) If you choose a roll-over for some but not all of your original interests, you apply the rules in this section as if your original interests for which you chose the roll-over were your only original interests.(37) Schedule 16, item 1, page 278 (line 15), after “original interests”, insert “and new interests”.(38) Schedule 16, item 1, page 280 (lines 12 to 14), omit “if *CGT event A1 or *CGT event C2 happens to a *demerging entity under the demerger”.(39) Schedule 16, item 1, page 280 (line 18), after “*demerger”, insert “or after a demerger”.(40) Schedule 16, item 1, page 281 (after line 6), at the end of section 125-170, add: (3) If the *reduced cost base of a *CGT asset is reduced under this section because of a *demerger, no other adjustment can be made under this Act to that reduced cost base because of something that happens under the demerger.(41) Schedule 16, page 282 (after line 11), after item 3, insert:3A Subsection 6(1)Insert:demerger allocation means: (a) the total market value of the allocation represented by the ownership interests issued by the demerged entity in itself under a demerger to the owners of ownership interests in the head entity of the demerger group; or (b) the total market value of the allocation represented by the ownership interests disposed of by a member of a demerger group under a demerger to the owners of ownership interests in the head entity; or (c) the total of both of those market values.(42) Schedule 16, item 4, page 282 (lines 12 to 24), omit the item, substitute:4 Subsection 6(1)Insert:demerger dividend means that part of a demerger allocation that is assessable as a dividend under subsection 44(1) or that would be so assessable apart from subsections 44(3) and (4).(43) Schedule 16, item 10, page 283 (lines 17 to 20), omit subsection (2), substitute: (2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply to a demerger dividend unless the head entity elects in writing, within one month after it decides which of its shareholders will receive ownership interests in the demerged entity under the demerger, that those subsections do not apply to the total demerger dividend for all shareholders.(44) Schedule 16, item 10, page 283 (line 29), before “subsidiaries”, insert “demerger”.(45) Schedule 16, item 11, page 284 (lines 8 to 12), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) The purpose of this section is to ensure that relevant amounts are treated as dividends for taxation purposes if: (a) components of a demerger allocation as between capital and profit do not reflect the circumstances of a demerger; or (b) certain payments, allocations and distributions are made in substitution for dividends.(46) Schedule 16, item 11, page 284 (line 26), after “section”, insert “45BA or”.(47) Schedule 16, item 11, page 285 (lines 6 to 18), omit paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), substitute: (a) a company provides the person with ownership interests in that or another company; or (b) something is done in relation to an ownership interest owned by the person that has the effect of increasing the value of an ownership interest (which may or may not be the same ownership interest) owned by the person. (48) Schedule 16, item 11, page 286 (line 4), omit “and profits”, substitute “or the extent to which the demerger benefit or capital benefit is attributable to profits”.(49) Schedule 16, item 11, page 287 (line 6), after “demerging entity”, insert “and demerged entity”.(50) Schedule 16, item 11, page 287 (line 10), after “demerging entity”, insert “and demerged entity”.(51) Schedule 16, page 293 (after line 18), after item 43, insert:43A At the end of section 202-45Add: ; (i) a *demerger dividend.(52) Schedule 16, page 293 (before line 19), before item 44, insert:43B At the end of section 975-150Add: (3) However, the right, power or option of an owner of *ownership interests in the *head entity of a *demerger group to *acquire, under a *demerger, ownership interests in the *demerged entity is not a right, power or option covered by subsection (1).(53) Schedule 16, item 54, page 295 (line 12), omit “the CGT events”, substitute “the only CGT events (if any)”.In the light of submissions made by industry commenting on the provisions of the bill providing tax relief for demergers, the government proposes to make a number of minor amendments directed at clarifying and improving the demergers legislation. These amendments include: allowing greater flexibility in identifying an appropriate head entity of a demerger group—amendments (3), (4) and (5); providing additional flexibility in the way a demerger may occur—amendments (8), (9), (10) and (24); introducing an additional exception into the requirement to maintain underlying ownership for certain hybrid—that is, part debt, part equity—instruments that have a reset clause subject to a 10 per cent de minimus rule—amendment (30); and a number of technical amendments to ensure that the demergers measure operates in the way that is intended—amendments (1), (2), (6), (7), (11) to (23), (25) to (29) and (31) to (53). In view of the time, I do not intend to delay the House further by expanding any more on these amendments, but they will apply to demergers happening on or after 1 July this year, coinciding with the commencement date of the legislation. I am particularly pleased to commend government amendments (1) to (53) to the House.19:24:006024McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—Very quickly, as I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, the opposition was aware of these amendments at the last minute. We have seen them but not had time to analyse their implications. They do appear, as the parliamentary secretary says, to be minor. We will certainly allow them to pass without opposition in this chamber and then we will scrutinise them in more detail in what we hope will be a Senate committee consideration of the bill shortly.Question agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.6024Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (7.24 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Adjournment6024Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (7.25 p.m.)—I move:That the House do now adjourn.602419:25:006024Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The events of the past week involving the Bulldogs rugby league club are a sad chapter in the history of that fine game. The sport itself has been brought into disrepute by a small number of individuals who placed personal gain ahead of their duty to the game of rugby league and the thousands of Bulldogs supporters. Those supporters can rightly feel betrayed by the actions of a few. So, too, can residents of Liverpool in my electorate where the promise of world-class sporting and entertainment venues in our area is now under a cloud. But where does the blame lie? If you go fishing for the culprits, you will find that it always leads back to one creature. Like the tentacles on a giant squid, scam after scam leads back to one head—to one giant squid. I will call him Mr Calamari. With one tentacle Mr Calamari reached into the Oasis project in Liverpool. He acted as a kind of project manager and allocated tenders for the construction work. Through his associated company, he contracted work out for which he was reimbursed by the Bulldogs' Sports and Community Foundation. One tenderer for work was surprised when told by Mr Calamari that he should give a higher quote and his tender would still be accepted. He did in fact get the contract, but has since found that he was paid for only part of the total sum quoted. He is out of pocket by more than $100,000 but, as far as he is aware, Mr Calamari's company was fully reimbursed. The practice of getting two quotes from subcontractors is a common way in which head contractors can extract secret commissions from project owners. Mr Calamari's activities with Oasis also included responsibility for its financial arrangements and public relations. Each of these tentacles may have been just as lucrative as skimming secret commissions from subcontractors. On top of that, Mr Calamari is reputed to have received a salary of $450,000 a year for his work at Oasis. Mr Calamari also has tentacles into real estate. He is reported to lease part of the building he owns in Burwood to the Bulldogs for a rental of $120,000 a year. Acting without board approval, he undertook to purchase units at Caloundra in Queensland on behalf of the Bulldogs. He wanted to sign up for a price of $200,000 for units valued at $155,000. I wonder who was going to pocket the difference? Mr Calamari's tentacles also reach into the area of sports management. He is reputed to receive 10 per cent of the sponsorship money from Bulldogs' sponsors: building company ADCO and building suppliers NTG and Clipsal. That is not a bad little earner, and there might even have been a little deal on the side to get contracts at Oasis. The tentacles also reach into sports merchandising. A fake order, on Bulldogs letterhead, for $211,000 worth of Nike style jackets has led to the supplier chasing one of Mr Calamari's companies for payment, and Nike is reported to be investigating the use of its logo. What I have described is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Mr Calamari's tentacles extend into many dark corners, not the least of which was making the under-the-table payments to Bulldogs players. And he has one other tentacle to watch. The story of the Bulldogs' salary cap breaches was broken by the Sydney Morning Herald, and this happened after his dealings with the Bulldogs were terminated last June. While the Herald seems to know a lot about the other players in this drama, Mr Calamari is portrayed as an innocent bystander. While its sister paper the Australian Financial Review details his sordid dealings, the Herald merely describes him as a controversial businessman. It is time to blow the whistle on the whistleblower. Mr Calamari is, of course, Mr Al Constantinidis, and it seems that his tentacles reach all the way to Sydney's Broadway.602519:30:006025Ticehurst, Kenneth, MPMr TICEHURST00ANFDobellLP10—I rise to continue the speech I commenced in the House last night. You may recall that I highlighted the huge impact that meningococcal disease has had not only throughout the world but also in my electorate of Dobell on the Central Coast. In recent times, we have tragically lost two young children to this terrible disease—namely, Stephen Sanig and Rebecca Calverley. They both lived in my electorate. I should emphasise that, despite the fact that their parents, on arriving at the hospital, were already convinced that their children had meningococcal disease, diagnosis and subsequent treatment did not come soon enough to save their children. What concerns me is that various studies—including those of the state government of Victoria—on the treatment of meningococcal disease stress that antibiotic therapy should not be delayed while initiating or awaiting the results of diagnostic tests. While some in the medical profession prefer not to administer antibiotics until they are sure of what they are dealing with, perhaps in the case of such a potentially fatal disease presumption should prevail and therapy be initiated at the earliest opportunity.Previously, I spoke of the important work being performed by the Meningococcal Association of Australia and of how I recently attended the launch of their special educational brochure that is designed to assist parents by alerting them to the symptoms of meningococcal disease. I would like to remind the House that this brochure is of tremendous value to parents in their fight to protect their children against the threat of this disease.It is important to point out that the two predominant strains of meningococcal disease are referred to as B and C. It is also important to point out that, while there is still no vaccine for the B strain, around two-thirds of those infected by the C strain are more likely to die. So it is highly appropriate that the government, for the moment, is concentrating on administering the C vaccine through its program, and I applaud the Howard government for that. While the vaccine is in limited supply, I am comforted by the knowledge that the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Kay Patterson, will expand the meningococcal C vaccination program as soon as more vaccine is produced. Fortunately, two new suppliers have just completed the registration process through the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and this will help to ease the worldwide shortage of this much-needed vaccine.I also point out that, contrary to many views on meningococcal disease, the germ itself cannot survive outside the human body for more than a few seconds and that you cannot catch meningococcal disease from water supplies, buildings or factories. The disease is commonly transmitted by sharing saliva, and I warn all parents—particularly those of school-age children—that, although the disease is difficult to spread, they should make sure that their children do not share their drink bottles with others and that they should discourage any other practice that might assist in the transfer of saliva.Finally, I would encourage all members to do whatever they can in their respective electorates to minimise the spread of this dreadful disease and to support the Meningococcal Association of Australia in their efforts to alert all parents to the symptoms of the disease so that early diagnosis is more likely. As I am not a member of the medical profession, it is not really my place to advise on such matters. I would ask those who are to consider assuming the worst when confronted with symptoms that suggest the onset of meningococcal disease and to administer antibiotic therapy as soon as possible. Bear in mind that the photograph featured on the front of that brochure is that of seven-year-old Stephen Sanig, a little boy who had everything to live for but who lost his life just 14 hours after the onset of a fever.602619:34:006026Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to talk about the importance of Western Sydney and, in doing so, to reject some of the unfounded criticism of the performance and commitment of the New South Wales government with respect to Western Sydney made by the member for Lindsay earlier this week. Western Sydney is the third largest region in Australia. It is a region that continues to experience significant levels of growth, but it is also a region facing major challenges in that it has a number of areas of considerable disadvantage. I believe that Western Sydney today is typical of many regions across the nation that are the result of urban sprawl and the expansion of our major cities and that are now somewhat of a heartbeat for the cities themselves. As we all appreciate, Australia is facing a significant backlog of infrastructure development—be it arterial roads in our capital cities, schools, hospitals, affordable housing or public transport links. For the member for Lindsay to stand in this House and condemn the New South Wales government as failing to address vital infrastructure backlog in the region is an exercise in blatant hypocrisy. It is not the role of state and local government alone. It is not good enough for the member for Lindsay to pass the buck and to dismiss the role of the Commonwealth in providing such infrastructure. The community of Western Sydney, an area in which I mix on a frequent basis, requires that all tiers of government put aside their so-called differences and historical competition and work out a concerted strategy based on cooperation at local, state and federal levels. As we all appreciate, good infrastructure planning and development requires the cooperation of all levels of government. They must work together to achieve the best outcomes for all regions across Australia, for both urban and regional communities.I believe the member for Lindsay should step back and take stock of the total lack of interest from her frontbench in infrastructure development, particularly from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, when it comes to the issue of the future of Western Sydney. The minister for transport's commitment to transport infrastructure development is conditional on how many votes he thinks can be bought with respect to a commitment to a particular infrastructure project. For example, the people of Western Sydney should not forget that, when it came to the issue of the national highway and the Western Sydney Orbital, the minister imposed on Western Sydney a road toll. Alternatively, when it came to the Scoresby Freeway project in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, not a Commonwealth responsibility but a state responsibility in association with the Commonwealth, it was fully funded by an agreement between the Victorian and the Commonwealth governments. So much for the commitment by the Commonwealth government to infrastructure needs in Western Sydney.If the member for Lindsay is so concerned about transport infrastructure development, lifestyle and access to public transport, let us have a look at the performance of her own government. Take, for example, its current policy position. Firstly, there is no mention of public transport in the AusLink plan—the minister's supposed all-encompassing transport infrastructure plan. I would have thought access to public transport is about lifestyle. Buses get a raw deal under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. There is still a GST on public transport. Current tax arrangements favour the increased use of company vehicles, which account for about 40 per cent of traffic during peak hours. Congestion clearly contributes to lifestyle. We have a national cycling strategy that the minister for transport likes to claim is a Commonwealth initiative, yet he says it is the responsibility of the states and territories to implement it.I believe that it is about time that all in this House accept that there is a requirement to actually do something in cities such as Sydney, especially in areas such as Western Sydney. But rather than coming into the House and suggesting that it is this government's or that government's responsibility, we should be trying to work out in a cooperative way how to bring the three tiers of government together in Western Sydney—local, state and Commonwealth—to face up to our shared responsibilities to improve the lifestyle of Western Sydney and to overcome the serious areas of disadvantage that were not touched on by the member for Lindsay in her contribution to the House this week. Yes, lifestyle, Minister, but it is a joint responsibility of the state and federal governments to find a better solution to the problems that exist in Western Sydney and the problems that exist in a number of major cities around Australia. It requires leadership and a real commitment to infrastructure development. (Time expired)602719:39:006027Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—I rise in the Australian Parliament to express very deep concerns that a Labor member of the Queensland parliament appears to be abandoning the bipartisan approach that ordinarily exists in Australian politics towards our multicultural community. On 7 August 2002, the Labor member for Cleveland in the Queensland parliament, a certain Mr Briskey, used an adjournment speech to criticise the federal Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Gary Hardgrave. What makes this Labor member's remarks all the more appalling is that he is also a parliamentary secretary with responsibilities for multicultural affairs in Queensland. Having little profile or prominence in the Queensland multicultural community, it is little wonder that the Labor member for Cleveland took the cheap shot opportunity to twist the meaning of the public words of a federal minister into what he thought might be a politically advantageous position.For the benefit of the House, in the relevant Courier-Mail article the federal minister simply spoke of the fact that in modern Australia, where language barriers exist between parents and children, there will invariably be some parents who find exercising their parental authority somewhat difficult and challenging. The minister's point was that such a situation arises in circumstances where English between immigrant parents and their children is at two different levels of fluency. In modern Australia, young migrants very quickly find themselves participating in the fullness of life that our community offers, therefore being able to advance their English far quicker than their parents. It was in this context that the minister made his remarks. There was no reference whatsoever, as the state member for Cleveland—a certain Mr Briskey—claims, that the minister was inciting racial division and attacking certain ethnic communities.I do not know how familiar the state member for Cleveland is with Vietnamese families, whom regrettably he brought into the debate, but I am certainly happy to compare notes with him at any time, because I know a thing or two about how Vietnamese families function. After all, I am married to a wonderful and beautiful lady of Vietnamese heritage. Moreover, I have known her family for some six years and can completely confirm the spirit and sentiment of the minister's public statements from first-hand experience. I ask the state member for Cleveland whether he is able to compare such experience. It is important that House of Representatives is aware that there are some politicians who profess to have an expertise in multiculturalism or an interest in the assimilation of new Australians into the broader community, yet really all they are doing is grandstanding for political and media coverage. The member for Cleveland is, I think, one such Labor politician in Queensland who clearly needs to do his homework. I am also disappointed that the member for Mount Ommaney in my federal seat of Ryan has entered the debate and taken an unfortunate and unfounded position.In the context of multicultural affairs, the role of any member of any parliament in our country is to foster unity and patriotism and especially to reach out to new citizens and make them feel welcome to the great Australian family. I believe that the federal member certainly has the portfolio credentials to represent multicultural Australia. If the state member for Cleveland has any doubts about the federal minister's capacity, all he needs to do is walk down the streets of Sunnybank or Eight Mile Plains and ask the people of Moreton what they think. But from my perspective, as someone who is also a migrant to this country and has a very strong connection with the migrant community in the federal seat of Ryan, I am extremely disappointed that a member of a parliament can falsely accuse and invoke debate on an issue that really should have bipartisan focus.I encourage the member for Cleveland in the Queensland parliament to do some more homework and, if he wishes to have the confidence of the multicultural community in Queensland, to come to my community. I have not seen him there and I would be very happy to introduce him to Australians of multicultural backgrounds who are great contributors to the story that is Australia. I would welcome him any time. I encourage him to contact my office so that I can promote to him what, from my experience, multiculturalism is all about. (Time expired)602819:45:006028Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—I rise to bring to the attention of the House the Desert Knowledge Symposium, which is taking place in Alice Springs this week—the heart of Australia in more ways than one. This symposium is one of the signature events in the National Year of the Outback calendar and is taking place at Outback Central 2002. Based in my home town of Alice Springs, Outback Central is a 10-day festival of business, science and cultural events that showcases the talent and innovation of the people of the outback. It speaks very highly of the talent and skills within Central Australia and Alice Springs in particular that the Desert Knowledge Symposium has attracted so many high-level local, national and international speakers. They will gather to consider, debate and promote the role of knowledge businesses in the desert regions of Australia and the world.I want to mention several of the desert knowledge projects being developed in Central Australia that have, in many ways, led to this symposium taking place. One of these is the community consultation project known as Alice in 10, which is an initiative of the Northern Territory government. Together with Alice in 10 is the Desert Knowledge Consortium, a group of organisations that came together to develop desert knowledge opportunities in the Alice Springs region. They recently converged with the Alice in 10 project to form Desert Knowledge Australia.It is an exciting time in Central Australia because we are beginning to appreciate some of the potential in our region that Desert Knowledge Australia is seeking to fulfil. This potential will be realised through using information technology, alternative energy creation and sustainable living applications as the key drivers of the Central Australian economy. This work is being built largely on the efforts and innovation of small, locally based knowledge clusters. It is these groups that the symposium is bringing together, allowing them to share insights and build networks that will progress desert knowledge.One major achievement has been the proposal for the Cooperative Research Centre. The CRC proposal involves a total budget of more than $94 million over a seven-year program. I commend the Northern Territory government for committing more than $1 million in direct funding to the proposal and $10 million through in-kind contributions. It is an exciting proposal that has drawn support from 12 universities, five Aboriginal organisations, six government agencies, three state and territory governments and five private sector bodies. Clearly, the level of interest the CRC proposal has attracted from across the country is a vote of confidence in the innovation and talent of Central Australia and especially in the potential of the desert knowledge industries.Another initiative I would like to mention is the Desert People's Centre. Indigenous people from Central Australia have a key role to play in developing and promoting desert knowledge, and they are taking a leadership role in the process. They have knowledge of desert living going back thousands of years and are remarkably generous in their sharing of that knowledge. The Desert People's Centre will work to gather this knowledge for the benefit of future generations and will provide a unique learning environment for all Australians.A key figure of the desert knowledge movement who deserves mention is Dr Ken Johnson, who has been appointed Senior Executive Officer of Desert Knowledge Australia. Ken has spent almost 25 years in Central Australia and has an immense knowledge of the issues that face a society that is trying to live sustainably in a desert environment. It is also very pleasing to be able to acknowledge the Federal Government's contribution of $50,000 to Desert Knowledge Australia through the Regional Solutions Program, which will provide for another staff member. The Desert Knowledge Symposium is very important. It will help to bring about the national and international partnerships which will be vital for Central Australia's efforts to export desert knowledge products and technologies to world markets. The symposium will give us a blueprint for action. Hopefully, with the support of public and private sector bodies across the country, the opportunities that are continuing to develop in this field will not be lost. I know that the shadow minister for regional affairs, who is sitting behind me—Blue—is very interested in this proposal.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—There are two Blueys here!IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Blue 1 and Blue 2. I finish my contribution this evening by paying tribute to a very fine Australian and someone who is leading debate in the Catholic church, Auxiliary Bishop Pat Power. This week he came out in public to talk about the need for the Catholic church to address the issue of celibacy. I have known Bishop Power for over 35 years. He is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. I know that he has been advancing progressive causes within the Catholic church for decades. It is time that he was properly heard and listened to. I hope that the other bishops and archbishops around Australia listen to what he has to say and promote the ideals which he is trying to promote.603019:49:006030Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNP10—I rise in this House tonight to first congratulate Bruce Campbell—a great Australian and a great Queenslander—who is Chairman of the Year of the Outback celebrations and whose original idea it was to this year deservedly acknowledge regional and rural towns. As the federal member for Maranoa and as a Year of the Outback ambassador, I have the pleasure of representing many of these outback towns. I feel it is appropriate at this time to make mention of the invaluable contribution these towns add to the wealth and opportunity experienced by many Australians today.The Year of the Outback has been a tremendous experience and journey for a cross-section of Australians. Some regional folk have learnt to enjoy and treasure their own backyards, while our city cousins have joined the droving adventures into the heart of Australia, gaining an insight into the amazing country that is Australia. What is it about this country that has unearthed a desire to explore its outback beauty? Perhaps it is the amazing diversity that extends from the vast open plains, the cracked red earth and almost uninhabitable territory, to the small but thriving rural towns that are adamant about making something of themselves by tapping into a wealth of farming and business opportunities and local initiative.Celebrations and commemorations have extended throughout the nation in this Year of the Outback. A few months ago, I had the pleasure of being involved in the Great Australian Cattle Drive, which left Birdsville for South Australia on 4 May. On this occasion, Birdsville—which is in the far west of my electorate and well known for its annual Birdsville races—swelled from its modest 100-strong population to well over 1,000 as modern-day drovers saluted their predecessors by droving almost 600 head of cattle in the footsteps of the pioneers through the backblocks of Australia on the edge of the Simpson Desert. This was an unforgettable event which enthralled spectators from all corners of Australia and from overseas.Earlier this month, the national spotlight turned to our Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello, also a Year of the Outback ambassador, as he joined the pilgrimage into western Queensland to see the outback in all its glory. Here, the Treasurer experienced what so many of my constituents are able to enjoy every day—dinner under the canopy of stars, the warm hospitality that is the Australian way and the relentless attempt of its people to survive in today's testing climate.This trip and in fact this whole year have awakened the national and international senses, with more attention than ever before now focused on outback Australia. As well, many rural communities have been inspired to arrange events to showcase the best their unique homes have to offer. The Year of the Outback was the concept of Bruce Campbell, brought about by his increasing concern with the growing divide between urban and rural communities. Figures show that in 1911 about 43 per cent of Australians lived in rural areas. Today, 85 per cent of the population live in our coastal cities. In spite of the vagaries of the seasons and commodity prices which envelop many of our rural communities, there is still a desire by these families to remain at home and weather the storm in good times and in bad. It is this patriotic passion and sheer grit and determination that has made Australia and its people what they are.Despite the bitter battle between business and mother nature, industry continues to grow. Yet there is still so much untapped potential in Australia's outback. As this year has been such a success, I believe National Year of the Outback Chairman, Bruce Campbell, and his organisation want to keep the momentum going. The ABC recently reported that Mr Campbell has canvassed this proposition throughout his travels and received total support. People are simply pleased to know that this will be an ongoing process which will be able to build on what has been achieved by communities across Australia this year. The committee wants to continue the theme over the next three years, dedicating time to the themes of knowledge, youth and outback communities. I wholeheartedly support this request, and I believe it is one that the House should consider and support.603119:54:006031Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I would like to congratulate the political editor of the Australian, Mr Dennis Shanahan, for bringing to the attention of the public and indeed the parliament the misrepresentation of Professor Alan Trounson in relation to the things that he has been saying about the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into human cloning, where we looked at this issue very carefully over two years. No-one on that committee gave the chairman of that committee, Kevin Andrews, more support than I did. During that inquiry, Professor Trounson made it quite clear that he had—indeed, that Australia had—sufficient embryonic stem cell lines for the purposes of his research. Although the minority view formed by the members of the committee condemned how those embryonic stem cells were obtained, we were prepared to live with the fact that he and others might be able to do research in the name of medical science to help people. We were conned and everybody else has been conned. He has certainly conned the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales with this video of the crippled rat walking and linking it to the benefits of embryonic stem cell research. We know now that that is not the case.I spoke on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 last Thursday in this House. I understand that tomorrow the bill will be coming back to the House from the Main Committee, where it should never have gone in the first place, because Australia at large is very interested in being able to hear this debate. We are going to deal with amendments—which I hope will be passed by this House—which will outlaw the type of research that Professor Trounson and others want to do in the name of so-called medical science. As I said in my earlier contribution in this House, at the heart of this legislation is a debate that actively promotes the notion of the destruction of an embryo, a human being, in the name of highly speculative medical science.It is highly speculative that embryonic stem cell research offers any real hope. I think it is cruel to disabled people—particularly people like Christopher Reeve and others who are in wheelchairs—to say that embryonic stem cell research offers some real hope when we know it does not. In fact, the insertion of embryonic stem cells into a spinal column carries a great risk of the cells turning malignant. It is clear from all the scientists who gave evidence to people like Kevin Andrews and me that adult stem cell research—and indeed, in relation to the spinal column, other medical research—offers the most hope for people who are tragically afflicted by disease or injury to the spinal column, like Christopher Reeve.In my view, embryos should only ever be created for the purposes of creating a human being, never for the purposes of experimentation and research. There have been so-called emotional arguments, which some have said have been the preserve of opponents of this bill. Unfortunately, many scientists in debating this legislation have been quick to build unreasonable or false community expectations about the imminent prospect of new treatments for many terrible conditions. It is a fact that adult stem cell research has had positive results and embryonic stem cell research is just absolutely speculative. Numerous highly esteemed medical scientists who gave evidence before the Andrews inquiry have rightly argued that embryonic stem cells have a great propensity to turn malignant and therefore are not the inevitable source of long-term treatments. I believe ethical science is good science. Embryos should not be treated as spare parts. We were all embryos once and I will be speaking again in the House tomorrow about this. (Time expired)CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the debate be extended in order to make some comments.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—There is no need to do so just yet. You can speak for a minute or so.603219:59:006032Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—I wish to thank the member for Ryan for his excellent address this evening in which he exposed the Labor Party's divisiveness on the issue of community relations. It is indeed very sad to me, as a federal minister and somebody from a very culturally diverse electorate, to see Queensland's Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier and Minister responsible for Multicultural Affairs using the Queensland parliament to make inflammatory comments to cause the entire Vietnamese community distress. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The debate may continue until 8.10 p.m.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The state member for Mount Ommaney, Julie Attwood, also woke up long enough to join Darryl Briskey in these comments and, as a result, she also sought to defame members of her own constituency. I think it is a great shame that she should try to bring the Vietnamese community into such disrepute.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On what basis is the debate being extended?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The standing orders allow a minister to extend debate by 10 minutes.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—So the adjournment debate is being extended—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—By 10 minutes.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—with your indulgence.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is in the standing orders.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—It is also important to note that, on top of what the member for Ryan has observed, the federal member for Rankin has embarked upon a similar program of writing letters to the editor, seeking to distort the facts. The Vietnamese community, though, has one of the highest uptakes of citizenship in this country. They are to be commended for this. Many have made exceptional contributions to Australia and have worked hard to succeed in our society. It is very sad that a senior member of the opposition, the member for Rankin, should also want to generalise comments that I have made regarding language barriers and try to turn them to reflect negatively on such a progressive group within our multicultural society. I would like to read to the House an email from Sang Van To, a member of the Vietnamese community in Brisbane, who emailed me with what he called `a word of thanks'. The email says: Attn: Gary. I just want to send my congrats to you for writing a letter to the local papers of Inala area defending the Vietnamese community ... Normally you see a lot of bad or negative criticisms about the Vietnamese people. But in your short letter you have done us proud by giving that Mt Ommaney politician a serve. Keep up the positive attitude about the Vietnamese community then you will be getting a lot more support than just myself ... Three cheers to you, Gary.As the federal Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs—indeed, as the federal member for Moreton, an ethnically diverse electorate—I believe it is a great pity that others do not also seek to reflect well upon a very progressive and important contributing group like the Vietnamese community. A similar tack has been used by Labor Party people in other places. It was used to politicise the African and Latin American Festival in May in my own electorate, where it was used as a platform for pro-Labor Party political speeches, showing the division that exists within the Queensland government on the matter of refugee policy in this country. The Queensland education minister, Anna Bligh, showed herself to be completely at odds with her premier in the comments that she made publicly that day.The Australian Labor Party are, as we know, very much out of touch. Most of Australia's six million migrants want to be part of the community and contribute to the building of this great nation. They do not want to be singled out or used as pawns in petty Labor Party style politics. It is also important to know that it does not stop there. This weekend, a Labor Party inspired protest is taking place in Sydney. (Quorum formed) This weekend in Sydney the Australian Labor Party through their member, Mr Talal Yassine, are whipping up a deal of anger in a meeting at the Lakemba mosque. At a time when the Islamic community in Australia is still feeling a sense of vulnerability, the Australian Labor Party have decided to use Mr Yassine, a solicitor who was unsuccessful in his Labor Party preselection for the state seat of Auburn for the by-election in 2001—he lost to Barbara Perry—to try and spread Labor Party propaganda about the government's legislation, which is loosely called the ASIO bill. I think it is disgraceful that emails are being used with attachments that have come directly out of Sussex Street. This effort is simply about trying to create a great deal of divisiveness, a great deal of hurt and a great deal of harm in a community that is very vulnerable. They were not content to have a meeting on 11 August with 160 ALP members and members of a variety of public organisations, including John Faulkner, Professor George Williams, Eva Cox, Cameron Murphy and Talal Yassine speaking on this—83LGillard, Julia, MP10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Lalor!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—they now wish to try and create a deal of harm and distress amongst members of the Islamic community. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, most Muslims in Australia are contributing members to our community, but if we have people like Talal Yassine doing the work of the Australian Labor Party and circulating reports from their law reform and constitutional forum around in emails—83LGillard, Julia, MPCK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The shadow minister opposite is showing, yet again, great contempt for bringing people together. This side is committed to a sense of unity and involvement in Australia in every possible way while those on the other side simply want to smear and cause fear and concern.83LGillard, Julia, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Lalor will cease interjecting.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Lalor is the shadow minister responsible for immigration matters and she should know better. She should be part of the solution or she is going to continue to be labelled—rightly—as part of the problem. Tonight is all about airing the fact that the Australian Labor Party will at any juncture, on any occasion, attempt to create an even greater sense of vulnerability amongst people in our community who are trying to settle here and be good Australians. The Labor Party stand condemned.20:08:006033House adjourned at 8.09 p.m.Notices6033The following notices were given:HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews to present a bill for an act to amend the Health Care (Appropriation) Act 1998, and for related purposes.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the notice for Private Members' business standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Dunkley concerning the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 being called on forthwith:0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported: Proposed Christmas Island common-use infrastructure—Christmas Island airport.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson to move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following arrangements applying for the further consideration of the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002: (1) That, immediately before the putting of the question on the motion that the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 be now read a second time, instead of the question on the second reading being put, the following question be put and determined forthwith: “That the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002be divided into— (a) a Bill for an Act to prohibit human cloning and other unacceptable practices associated with reproductive technology, and for related purposes, to be known as the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, (incorporating, with associated amendments, the title, enacting formula and Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 56, 61 and 62 and the schedule of the bill as introduced, and an activating clause), and (b) a Bill for an Act to regulate certain activities involving human embryos, and for related purposes, to be known as the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 (incorporating, with associated amendments, Parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the bill, and also including with amendments the provisions of clauses 56, 61 and 62 of the bill as introduced and a new clause 55A).” (2) That if the question that the bill be divided as proposed in paragraph (1) is agreed to, the following separate questions be then put: “That the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, as contained in a form to be made available to Members, be read a second time (that question to be decided without further debate)”If the motion that the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 be read a second time is agreed to, for the consideration in detail stage the House then proceed to consider in detail the bill as contained in the form to be made available to Members; and “That the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002, as contained in a form to be made available to Members, be read a second time (that question to be decided without further debate)”If the motion that the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 be read a second time is agreed to, for the consideration in detail stage the House then proceed to consider in detail the bill as contained in the form to be made available to Members. (3) That, when the consideration in detail of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 has been completed, the remaining stages of the measures be dealt with separately and in accordance with the provisions of the standing orders and ordinary practices of the House.2002-08-28—————The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members6035603509:40:006035O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr BRENDAN O'CONNOR00AN3BurkeALP00—Last Sunday I had the great pleasure of attending the Sunbury Wine Festival, which clearly is the premier showcase for local wines throughout the region. Not only was I able to visit the established wineries such as Craiglee and Goona Warra—wineries that were established in the 19th century and have been there for almost 150 years—I also had an opportunity to talk with representatives of the Fenton Views Winery, which is a small winery near Clarkefield, the Ray-Monde Winery, the Wildwood Vineyards, the Diggers Rest Vineyard and a number of others. In fact, the Sunbury region is home to 15 boutique wineries now, and they have won their place on Australian tables due to their quality and distinct taste.It was on a warm, sunny Sunday that thousands of visitors from the local area and beyond visited the festival. This year's festival was a turning point. The festival was once a one-day event and now, I am happy to say, this event has turned into a three-day celebration. I should also make mention that the festival kicked off last Friday with the Winemakers' Dinner at Rockbank, at the Witchmount Estate. That, from all accounts, was a wonderful event.The resurgence of wineries within this region not only enhances the area's appeal but also provides very important economic growth and employment opportunities to the region. Against the backdrop of the collapse of Ansett, this industry's growth is vitally important in Sunbury and also to the Macedon region. Given the proximity to Melbourne's central business district and the allure of beautiful landmarks such as Mount Macedon and Hanging Rock, tourism and hospitality should continue to grow and provide much-needed jobs. There are 52 vineyards within the Burke electorate, which might be a surprise to some. Last year I wrote to these wineries to inform them of Labor's wine industry policy, particularly with respect to the methods to mitigate the combined impact of the GST and the wine equalisation tax upon cellar door sales. This policy was warmly welcomed by those local businesses. This month my office has resumed dialogue with the local players in the industry, seeking their views on the existing Labor policy currently under review and any further issues they wish to raise. As their local representative and as a member of Labor's wine industry caucus committee, I am keen to contribute to refining Labor's policy in this important area.603509:43:006035Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—It is with great sadness that I rise today to advise the House of the death of an outstanding member of the Port Stephens community, Mr Don Waring. Not only was Don Waring a leader in the community but his support for local sporting clubs will never be forgotten. Don Waring's legacy to those in the Nelson Bay area lies mostly in his achievements in sport, sport administration and education.Don and Elizabeth Waring moved to Port Stephens in 1978 and for six years operated the Nelson Bay Preschool on the corner of Dalton and Church streets. In June 1980, Don joined the Tomaree Sports Complex Committee representing the Australian Rules club and pursued the development of a suitable area for the sport to be played. In 1981, Don was the founding president of the Nelson Bay Australian Rules Football Club. He was appointed to the role of secretary-treasurer of the Tomaree Sports Council in March 1981. This position has evolved to its current role as the honorary administrator. Don has also held an executive role within the Nelson Bay Netball Club. During the 1980s he regularly umpired cricket in the district competition and then in the city and the suburban competition, and also assisted with umpiring in the local AFL competition. He umpired over 100 AFL games.Don fought many battles for local sporting clubs, including one great debate about charging local schools fees for the use of grounds at Nelson Bay Primary School. As usual, he won. In 1992, he was awarded the administrator of the year at the annual Port Stephens Sport Star of the Year awards. In 1996, Don made a significant contribution to the development of the council's sporting clubs loans policy, where council established a $100,000 fund for local sporting clubs to borrow against. Three years later he was a finalist in the Hunter Region Sports Awards in the administrator-volunteer category. And, in 2000—and justifiably so—Don was awarded the Australian Sports Medal for his contribution to sports administration.In the 20 years that Don has been the honorary administrator we have seen many changes take place. The first financial statement that he tendered totalled an income of only $650, all of which was derived from council subsidies. The 2000-01 financial statement totals an income of just over $28,000, of which the council subsidy is only $1,000. It is a tremendous effort to raise money for local sporting facilities, all of which is returned to the facilities in the Tomaree Peninsula. It is clear that Don has been the driving force behind the ongoing development and improvement of sporting facilities on the Tomaree Peninsula. From day-to-day upgrades and improvements, his contribution and drive has seen the development of the Tomaree sports complex master plan, and he has been a champion of local sporting organisations. Without identities such as Don Waring, communities such as those on the Tomaree Peninsula would be far worse off. I dare say that his contribution to local sporting causes could not be equalled by anyone in the area. He will be greatly missed, not only for his efforts on the sporting arena but also as a local identity who provided leadership and outstanding community services. Whilst cricket may have their `Don' in Don Bradman, Port Stephens has had its own `Don' in Don Waring. My condolences go to his wife, Elizabeth, and his family at this time. I wish them all well. God bless you, Don Waring. Our community is proud of you. May you rest in peace.603609:46:006036Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Today I want to speak about Nick Brain, a remarkable young man from my electorate of Jagajaga, and the excellent school that he attends, Banksia Secondary College. Nick is an articulate, clever and energetic young fellow. He is the captain of the school and is planning to go to university next year. But what is special about Nick is not only these achievements, important though they are, but also the fact that just three years ago his life was headed down an altogether different path. By the time he was in year 9, Nick's life was in turmoil. His parents had separated, and he was living in a two-bedroom flat with seven other people. In his own words, he had some very bad friends, little money and an unstable home life. Not surprisingly, his studies suffered. Fortunately, Nick's school realised he needed help and was able to provide it. Banksia Secondary College is in an area where it is not uncommon for families to suffer hardship. It recognises the destructive effect instability at home can have on learning, and it believes that providing an education requires much more than providing books, teachers and classrooms. Banksia is a pilot school in the Myer Full Service School Project, which aims to build direct links between schools and organisations that can help students in need such as health services, local clubs and councils. Using its links, Banksia was able to refer Nick to Berry Street, Victoria, a counselling service for young people. It is a connection that has helped Nick turn his life around. Without it he believes he would have dropped out of school, jeopardising his own future and adding to the nation's pool of lost talent.Nick's experience is a testament to what can be achieved when schools are given the opportunity to take an active interest in their students, not just in their performance at school but also their general welfare. Earlier this month Nick attended the launch in Canberra of a report calling for much greater government investment in education, a report that is called Bridging the gap between the haves and have-nots. It was great to see him at Government House, along with other students, some of whom came from the Queensland area around Ipswich. He is a terrific ambassador for his school, our Nick, and his story highlights the importance of extracurricular support for many students in realising their potential. This is what makes projects such as full service schools so important. If governments and communities support our teachers and direct efforts towards these schools where disadvantage dominates, we can make a difference to the lives of our children, and that is the task that is very much before us as we develop our critical policies to make sure that students in disadvantaged areas get the opportunities that other people take for granted.603709:49:006037Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, as you are well aware, I represent Townsville in the national parliament—Townsville, the capital city of Northern Australia but also the capital city of the largest minerals province in the world. I refer to the north-west minerals province, which stretches from the Townsville coastline right out to the Northern Territory border, including the Carpentaria minerals province.I rise to explain to the House the concerns that the mining industry currently has in that province, where there has been a very significant downturn over recent years and a very significant decline in exploration activity. It is finding new resources that, of course, keeps this particular industry going. This decline in exploration resources has seen the loss of perhaps 350,000 jobs, the loss of annual mineral export earnings of more than $30,000 million and the loss of direct revenue to government of more than $8,000 million. As evidence of that decline, the number of listed exploration companies operating out of Townsville has been reduced from around 18 in the mid-1990s to just two in this current year. Geologists, field technicians, IT and administrative staff have all lost their jobs. Local service companies, such as Assay Laboratories, field equipment suppliers and drilling companies, have closed or downsized in response to reduced exploration expenditure. The number of drilling companies has been reduced from around 12 to just four in that time and, I think we all know, many rural towns have suffered a marked economic downturn as exploration activity in the area has slowed or ceased. What is the solution? There are a number of them. First of all, there needs to be an urgent review of the current native title legislation with respect to land access. It is an awfully costly, uncertain, complex process, which makes it very hard for those seeking to add to Australia's production. We should institute a national register of cultural heritage sites in order to simplify the process of cultural clearance surveys that are required, and the mining industry should not have the responsibility to do this. We should perhaps reintroduce taxation incentives for the mining industry. But, whatever we do, we should also invest in the acquisition of high-quality geoscientific data and provide simple and affordable access to geoscientific data, including government funded research data.It is extraordinarily important for the government—both the national government and the Queensland government—to recognise what has happened to the exploration industry in the north-west minerals province. So many jobs depend on it, and Australia depends on it.603809:52:006038Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The Sandgate community is in shock following the tragic fire that razed a boarding house on 2nd Avenue. Sadly, three lives were lost in the fire, with a neighbour also losing their life, suffering a heart attack upon witnessing the horrific fire. Our community's thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those who lost their lives. In spite of this tragedy, I know the Sandgate community will pull together. An ecumenical service is currently being planned, which will allow local residents to remember those who lost their lives and to pay tribute to the emergency service officers and neighbours who also risked their lives.The aftermath leaves us all wondering how such a loss of life could have been avoided. While investigations are continuing into safety equipment and the cause of the fire, it is also relevant that we look at the housing arrangements for those who rely on boarding house accommodation. Decent housing is vital to the wellbeing of low-income earners, and in most states there is a chronic shortage of decent, affordable housing; we certainly need more. In the context of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which is currently being reviewed and renegotiated, I hope the government is able to restore funding to this very important area.Also in the Lilley electorate, we have celebrated the completion of some very important Centenary of Federation projects. An area in the electorate currently being given a new lease of life is Nundah Village, with new business and streetscapes being put in place. Part of that project includes the Nundah Time Line. Funding was provided through the Centenary of Federation grants for 10 bollards, forming part of street art. They are an important reminder of the history of the district and the part Nundah has played in the development of this nation. These bollards represent many different facets of Nundah's history, including the early settlement by German missionaries, the despair of the Great Depression, the triumph of Charles Kingsford-Smith, the success achieved by migrant families, the worker's cottage—representing the hunger of Australians to own their own home—and many other facets. We have also celebrated the opening of the Chermside Historical Precinct, partly funded by a $60,000 Centenary of Federation grant, where the old drill hall from Sandgate was relocated. On Sunday the Milne Bay Library was open to further complement this very important project.Another Centenary of Federation project was the publication of Pinkenbah: The Fighting Turtles, a history of Pinkenbah State School and district. In the Pinkenbah area we also have a problem, as the Howard government proposes to sell the Meeandah army barracks. This is an irreplaceable asset in the defence of our nation. It is a very important logistics base, ideally situated for key logistical roles in major military mobilisation. The government is flagging its sale and also the location there of a possible detention centre. This is too important a strategic defence site to be flogged off. It would never be able to be replaced. It must remain in public hands.603809:55:006038Hartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER00AMMCowperNP10—On 18 August 1966, D Company 6RAR was patrolling the area of Long Tan rubber plantation when, at 3.15 p.m., the lead platoon—11th platoon, commanded by Second Lieutenant Gordon Sharp, a national serviceman—encountered a small group of Vietcong, who fled. Patrolling continued until 4.08 p.m., when the main body of the Vietcong 275 Regiment was encountered. The Vietcong attacked vigorously with mortars, rifle fire and machine-gun fire. In the pouring rain, the Australians returned fire and, with the assistance of artillery from the nearby Nui Dat base and support from B Company, the battle swung in favour of the Australians. A far larger force, estimated at some 2,500, was driven off at a cost of 18 Australians killed and 24 wounded. Despite these events being some 36 years ago, the sacrifices of those who fought at Long Tan and throughout the entire Vietnam conflict are still remembered. Those servicemen are remembered not only in our major cities and regional centres but also in hundreds of towns and villages right across the country. I was honoured to receive an invitation to attend the Long Tan Day commemoration at Bowraville from the Bowraville Vietnam Veterans Association. Bowraville is a very small community—a spirited village—in my electorate of Cowper. In a brief but moving ceremony, the community of Bowraville remembered our fallen diggers. I must compliment the efforts of Jim Cameron, President of the Bowraville Vietnam Veterans Association, and Secretary John Glennon for organising the ceremony. I also thank Piper Phil Knight, a veteran from an earlier conflict: Phil is a World War II veteran who, I believe, served in East Timor.This ceremony is very much a family and community affair, with the honour roll being read by John Glennon's daughter, Sophie, and participation by the local scout troop. The efforts of scout leaders Kieran Dell, Fiona and Robert Grace, Gail and Kevin Smith and their scout group showed the interest of youth in this most important day and the very wide support which this ceremony enjoyed throughout the entire Bowraville community. Also present were the ladies of the local RSL club branch auxiliaries, including well-known personality Betty Boland.After the ceremony we enjoyed hospitality at the local RSL club, and it was indeed an honour to share this time with the veterans of Bowraville. I am certain that all veterans would be heartened by the commemoration of Long Tan Day across our nation, particularly when you see the depth of community support in our cities and towns, large and small.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills6039R16086039Debate resumed from 27 August, on motion by Mr Howard:That this bill be now read a second time.09:58:006039Panopoulos, Sophie, MPMs PANOPOULOS00AMUIndiLP10—Whilst we have had a long tradition of caring for the sick in this country, we also have a need to protect those who cannot defend themselves. Human embryos are part of this category and, by sanctioning their destruction, we effectively allow a harmful assault on human life at its most precious moment. I am deeply touched by the real stories of human suffering and disease that have surfaced throughout this debate. No-one can fail to be moved by the powerful stories of human valour and courage in confronting suffering and pain in our young and old. However, the promise by some scientists of a better life, cured of all disease, is an exaggerated proposition. On the available evidence, the promises from scientists of a disease- and illness-free life for those already burdened are unfounded. In fact, some proponents of embryonic stem cell research have gone further and misled members and senators of this parliament. As reported by Dennis Shanahan in the Australian newspaper, the principal lobbyist for embryonic stem cell research, Professor Alan Trounson, showed Canberra politicians a video of a walking rat that had been crippled, claiming that human embryonic stem cells had been injected into the rat which allowed this creature to be cured and to walk. Professor Trounson has admitted that the cells injected into the rat were, in fact, embryonic germ cells taken from aborted foetuses and not from five-day-old fertilised eggs.Unfortunately, this critical debate has been plagued by individuals and organisations that will say anything to ensure that their side wins. This has included the emotive exploitation of the tragic circumstances of some in our society who are suffering from debilitating diseases. This debate should have been beyond the careers and egos of a handful of talented scientists. Some of the more assiduous promoters of embryonic stem cell research are perpetuating a myth and offering false hope to the most vulnerable members of our community. Those in the medical sciences who peddle an agenda of unlimited ethical boundaries are not seeking to create life or do humanity a good deed. Rather, they seek to destroy life and offer the unfounded possibility of a better life for the sick and vulnerable. Amidst the claims by some scientists of a future free from illness and disease, I believe that balance and caution need to be brought back into this important debate.Even scientific opinion on this issue is divided. Professor Peter Rathjen, Head of Molecular Biosciences at the University of Adelaide, has cast strong doubt on the alleged benefits of embryonic stem cell research, stating that it is `nonsense that stem cells might be able to cure Alzheimer's'. Professor Gustav Nossal said in the Canberra Times that it would be 10 or 15 years before embryonic stem cell therapies might become available. The jury is out and meaningful evidence is yet to be produced on the supposed amazing cures promoted by the supporters of such research. Yet the dangers associated with embryonic stem cell research are real and, to date, no benefits have been documented. In fact, on the available evidence from attempts to treat Parkinson's disease, the use of embryonic stem cells has proven to be fraught with difficulty. A more ethical and successful method of stem cell research is through the utilisation of adult stem cells. This approach is free from any of the major ethical dilemmas associated with embryonic stem cell research. Importantly, adult stem cell research has so far produced the most effective and promising success stories in the area of curing human illnesses. Adult stem cell applications are already treating hundreds of thousands of people and offer real hope for those affected by disease and disability. It seems irrational that we are wanting to follow the path of embryonic stem cell research at the very time that the world leaders in this debate, the USA and Germany, are moving in favour of adult stem cell applications and other ethically acceptable alternatives.Why are some scientists intent on killing human embryos instead of channelling efforts towards successful and ethical research areas? Adult stem cell applications already have the runs on board and the research on adult stem cells has produced gratifying results. These results are not perfect as yet, but some of the successful applications of adult stem cell research include restoration of vision and stabilisation of multiple sclerosis. I warmly welcome the news published in Nature journal concerning the medical breakthrough in the United States on adult stem cell research. This news is clear evidence that adult stem cell research is capable of achieving and working towards a satisfactory treatment for many of our diseases and medical ailments.Contrary to popular opinion, this is not a debate about religion pitted against science; that was a debate that occurred in the 18th century, when science was the great antithesis of religion. Rather, this is a debate about the merits of a proposal that will give scientists unfettered access to our most precious asset—human life. What sort of society do we create when we afford dignity and rights to some members and not to others?My position to vote against this bill has been vindicated by those in my electorate who have taken the time to write, phone and email my office thanking me for my stance. In my nine months as a federal member of this parliament, I have received more correspondence on this issue than on any other. There are significant community concerns about the passage of the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and I believe that through its passage we will take a backward step as a society. As I said before, research that might save lives is superfluous if it destroys life in the process.I believe that medical science should be concerned with nurturing and protecting human life. Through the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 embryos are to be sacrificed for corporate and scientific gain, with little acknowledgment of the ethical dilemmas associated with such a process. I am unable to sanction the destruction of human embryos for scientific experimentation and endorse the subsequent devaluing of human life. I am sceptical about the effectiveness of the intended safeguards in this bill.Forgive my cynicism, but scientists are not immune from ordinary human weaknesses and are not beyond the temptation to pursue experimentation beyond the guidelines this bill establishes. We have already seen the scientists leading the charge in favour of experimentation on human embryos spectacularly misinforming parliamentarians about the effectiveness of such research. I do not accept the argument that if one supports IVF it necessarily follows that one should support research into embryos. IVF is about giving families the opportunity to enjoy the pleasures of having children. Research on embryonic stem cells is about the deliberate destruction of embryos. If this bill is passed, a new class of human life is created—that is, embryos that are at the immediate disposal of scientists. This is something that my conscience will not allow me to support and is why I will be voting against this bill.10:06:006041Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINV5BruceALP00—The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is an issue that has occupied considerable time of the parliament and considerable time in the community in recent times. In my case, I think it occupied considerably more time than most because of my involvement in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report called Scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning and stem cell research as a committee member for the last nine or 10 months. During that time, although I missed most of the actual hearings with respect to this, I did read most of the transcript and I was involved in a lot of the discussions towards the end of the inquiry when we were grappling with the question of what we should do as a committee. From there, I was part of the committee report writing process and considered the issues involved through that period. This was an issue which sorely vexed some members of the committee about where to go from here.It is a debate that has been highlighted—or lowlighted, in my view—by extreme claims from all sides. The range of claims varies from statements made by some scientists who are in favour of the research, Professor Trounson being one whom I will have a couple of things to say about later which are not too complimentary, to the other side where various experts from both religious and scientific fields take a more flat-earth approach and are concerned more about ethics and matters that I think are also being blown out of proportion. What can we say about this debate? We can say a few things, and one is that, as someone who has spent a fair bit of time looking at this, I am not sure what will end up being the case in regard to scientific research in this area, both in terms of adult stem cells and in terms of embryonic stem cells. With my knowledge, which is limited and that of a layman, with respect to research in these areas, the one thing that is clear is that the jury is still out. There is evidence with respect to adult stem cells that suggests we will see some major achievements on behalf of humankind in the years to come. There is evidence to suggest that the same thing may well happen with embryonic stem cells. I do not know about this because I am not a scientist, I am not an expert in this field, and one is getting, on a regular and continuing basis, evidence that suggests things both ways. We are certainly seeing a situation where proponents of both sides of the cause are endeavouring to deflate or inflate particular claims to assist their own particular views with respect to this issue.When this matter was being considered by the committee the circumstances were that overwhelmingly, but not entirely, medical experts who were involved in adult stem cells and in embryonic stem cells agreed on one thing: that research into both should continue and that, as is the case with medical research and as is the case with, for example, drug development in a range of areas, often where you go and how you get there is not quite that simple and developments in one can and will often assist developments in the other. The intention overall is to move forward in a way that ensures that society has better techniques to deal with the range of debilitating conditions that face people as they grow older or that they may have faced from an early age. So I do not think there is a convincing view one way or the other on the question of which research is best; I think both research areas are essential and ought to be progressed on that basis. It comes down to your ethical view and what you see as being the question here. I think that is the key.Before I go to that question, though, I turn to arguments that have been put in relation to why this sort of research should not be allowed. They relate to things like the slippery slope and that this is a step down a track which inexorably leads to dire things. Some quite horrific examples have been given as to where this might end up, citing Nazi Germany, for instance. That is plainly ridiculous, in my view. It is not ridiculous to say that, if research goes down this track, things may not end up where people want them to end up. But the bottom line is that, if you do not regulate these areas, you abrogate your responsibility and your capacity to influence what occurs. That issue underpins the whole point of government, and that is that we are here, on occasions, to intervene and to regulate in order to ensure we minimise the chances of particular things occurring within society. So I say to those who argue that this is a slippery slope that the point of this legislation is to ensure that there is a regulatory system in place to avoid such a problem.Will that system be perfect? No, I do not believe it will be perfect. Is it important to have a system? Yes, it is. Are we in a situation where we ought to be able to deal with the serious issues around this question? I believe we can, but I do not believe that, if the legislation passes this parliament and is then implemented, that will be the end of the story; not at all. For example, at the moment we are particularly dealing with the question of what we do with research into excess IVF embryos. I will be quite frank about this. As a member of the majority viewpoint on the Legislation and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I support the use of excess IVF embryos in the circumstances outlined. Depending on developments in the future, if evidence is produced to show that this research will be successful in dealing with the range of conditions that have been mentioned—and that is a big if—then I would be prepared to consider other aspects of therapeutic cloning that have been talked about in relation to treatments in this area, but not now.That was the point of the committee; that was the point of the legislation having a sunset clause with respect to considering this issue again in terms of where we go. I do not believe the circumstances are there now to say that is necessarily the way forward and I want to be able to look at that again in future if required. I hope it is required or that adult stem cells have advanced to a stage where that research takes care of those issues and we do not have to deal with these ethical questions. But, if we have not got to that stage, my view is that we ought to consider those questions down the track. That is how you avoid the slippery slope in these circumstances: you put in place safeguards that allow you to revisit the issues and consider them in the circumstances.I think one of the best arguments about the question of slippery slopes and concerns about the ethics of some of the people involved has come up in the last 24 hours. It is the story about Professor Alan Trounson, the germ cell experimentation with the paralysed rat and what appears to have come out in that. I stress `appears to have come out' because I do not know that we have heard the end of it quite yet. I will say this: I sincerely hope that Professor Trounson is a better researcher than he has been an advocate for the research he seeks to support. I have to say that I think he has been one of the big problems in this debate. That is not something new for me to say, although I have not said it publicly before.At one stage Professor Trounson said to the committee—and I think this is quoted in the report—that there were enough stem cells available now, with respect to the stem cell lines, to do what is required. That was plainly out of sync, out of touch, with the other researchers that we spoke to. I must admit that I formed a view at that time that this guy ought to spend more time in front of the test tube and less time in front of parliamentarians or the community trying to explain stuff which he clearly has some problems with, with respect to ensuring that he gets across the views of his particular part of industry. His involvement in this whole area, in terms of the public debate, has been unhelpful. It has been confusing and, frankly, the sooner he gets out of it, the better. When we look at where we go from here, it gets down to that ethical question of the status of an embryo. What are we talking about here? Is this a human life or isn't it? What happens to that human life? I am sorry, the arguments have been stated right across. I personally do not believe that an embryo at the age that we are talking about constitutes a human life or the potential development of a human life because it is not actually implanted. It is not in a situation where development is going to occur, and we know it is not going to occur because of the circumstances we face with, in this case, excess IVF embryos.The bottom line on this issue is that the real argument people should be having is about whether or not they support IVF. If they do not support IVF, that is fine. That is a legitimate position ethically, religiously and morally to take. I do not accept it but I understand it. Essentially, that is the real argument here because, once we have IVF, we have those embryos. There are conditions being set around when they can be used and how they can be used. I think that that provides the sorts of safeguards that will ensure we do not have the slippery slide that some people have spoken about.There is the question of where we go from here in this issue. I respect the views of everyone in this debate. I am hopeful that the decision that I am personally taking is the correct one. I do not know if it is the correct one. I do not believe any of us can be sure about it. I believe on balance, under the circumstances, that support for this legislation is the correct decision to take at this time. This is a matter which will be moving forward and has been moving forward at quite a pace. It is something that needs to be evaluated on a continuing basis. It needs to continue to have complete scrutiny both from the public and the community at large, from scientific researchers on all sides and from government to ensure that the potential excesses that could occur are avoided. In the circumstances, I believe these things can take place in a way which allows us to examine and progress some of the potential opportunities for research. If those opportunities are successful, great. If they are not, then I think we have to see where we go from there, but I support the legislation.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 10.18 a.m. to 10.30 a.m.10:30:006044Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I was a member of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which looked into human tissue cloning during the last term of government. I was one of the four who ultimately came down against the use of human embryos in medical research. The committee heard evidence and held public meetings across the nation over the course of many months, and all members of the committee were deeply committed to a rightful outcome guided by their own principles, consciences and beliefs.I acknowledge and respect the genuine depth of feeling expressed by my colleagues on both sides of the House during the debate on this most vexed issue. I also wish to state that I am not against stem cell research; indeed, I acknowledge such research to be one of the new thresholds of our generation that holds tremendous promise for curing those diseases that still challenge humankind. I support wholeheartedly adult stem cell research. I am sure that the House has already been informed of the proven efficacy of adult stem cell research, as canvassed in the speeches of many other members, and as opposed to the many unanswered issues still clouding human embryo research, so I do not intend to canvass that particular issue. I note that many members have sought to explain to themselves as well as to the nation the beginning of life. In the brief time I have allotted to me, I want to explain to my constituents specifically and to the nation generally why I will vote no to the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and why, if I could, I would scream that no from the very top of Parliament House.In essence, this is really about one principle or, as I see it, one paradigm that has guided our society. It has been the mainstay of our law and the foundation stone of our institutions. It has been at the very heart of the life in our homes, in our neighbourhoods and within the great gleaming cities that we have built here in Australia. For our first 100 years of nationhood, this paradigm, this principle, has been the sanctity of human life. It is the essential, intrinsic value of humanness that an educated and even enlightened people instinctively recognise in all other persons that they meet. It is the quintessential connection of each to the humanity of the other, to the point that the enlightened amongst us even identify the divine in their fellows. It is the reason a stranger will risk his or her life to save another. It is the source of personal sacrifice, of compassion and of courage. Ultimately, it is the source of shared hope and endurance and, in our very own vernacular, it is the source of that wonderful Aussie word that encompasses so much that is the spirit of all: mateship. I am talking about values. Our respect for human life has moulded and shaped our system of values that has been maturing during our first 100 years of history as a nation, and it has been the ruling paradigm of our society. While on the committee, I initially had a view that I have since heard expressed by many of my colleagues, that even if these surplus embryos are human life—I understand that even Professor Trounson accepts that they are human life—they are going to die anyway. So, if they are going to die, they might as well be put to good use in the possible prevention of suffering by many children and adults—our fellow human beings who suffer terribly from incurable diseases. I can understand this, because this initially seemed to me a very reasonable and a very responsible conclusion. However, if our ruling paradigm is the sanctity of human life, these surplus embryos also deserve our respect and regard. One must take that decision or that argument to its honest and natural conclusion. I do not see how reducing surplus embryos to human material that can be researched upon can possibly accord with any such respect and regard.There is absolutely no dignity whatsoever in being an object of research. Such an act immediately dehumanises the embryo and, further, dehumanises the researcher and even dehumanises the society which allows such research to occur. The surplus IVF embryos must be allowed to naturally succumb, otherwise we will all be dehumanised as individuals, each to the other. We will have stepped away from our ruling paradigm, that guiding principle, that has been with us in our society for our first 100 years; the higher respect due to human life. And, more importantly, we will have replaced it with the next potent paradigm, that of economic rationalism—that modern derivative of utilitarianism. Then we will all be reduced to the value of the use to which we can be put, the use that we can contribute to our society.In this new value system, all humans will be seen as contributors to the greater good of the society, not as having an intrinsic value as being a unique, vibrant human individual. And those who are contributors, commodities or objects of use will be the valued ones. Those who are merely consumers and polluters will be seen as useless. Under this paradigm, how do we then justify spending great sums on the care and support even of our aged citizens or indeed, paradoxically, those who cannot be cured of horrendous disease?This legislation will create a category of human life which will be immediately disposable. This is destructive research. It is bad science, and I stand against bad science. It is not necessary, and there is genuine doubt that it works anyway. The article in yesterday's newspapers that Dr Trounson deliberately misrepresented that truth about his research is more than alarming. This is bad science, and its main proponent has been publicly shown to speak with a forked tongue to the whole nation. There is big money at stake in this issue, let there be no mistake—and it is big corporate money.The irony is that none of this is necessary. Already, good ethical science and good ethical researchers are clearly demonstrating to the world that adult stem cell research provides clear answers and offers real hope for real solutions to the most tragic of human diseases. Adult stem cell research saves life; embryonic stem cell research destroys life. It is as clear as that. This bill is a crucial philosophical alignment for us as a nation. On one side, it is about how we continue as a society into our next century as Australians and whether our society will continue to be guided by the values that derive from our respect for human life. On the other, are we now to be guided by merely the commodity value of the use to which a life can be put? This is dark and uncharted territory, and it is an area where we should be afraid to tread.I urge my colleagues, whom I know to be reasonable and responsible: do not cross this line; we do not need to. There is a better way, and it is the way of principled research that saves life. It is the way of a mature society, a people elevated not only by their own awareness of their own intrinsic human value but also of that value and worth that they see in their fellows.10:38:006045Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I rise to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. As previous members have observed, this bill contains issues of moral, ethical philosophical and practical concern. As with many members of this place, I have received literally hundreds of pieces of correspondence regarding this issue from those who either oppose or support the legislation, either in part or in full. In responding to these people, I advised them that I intended to consider all the arguments brought before this House and then make a decision based on the merits of those arguments.Having listened carefully to the debate and have weighed up the considerations, I can report to the House that I now intend to fully support this bill. I believe that in the circumstances this course is the only one which is morally, ethically and philosophically right and in the best interests of the Australian community, both now and in the future. At the end of the day, the choice being made in relation to this bill is simple: allow the use of excess embryos for research which may benefit those who are suffering or will suffer, or destroy those same embryos for no benefit whatsoever. We have covered a range of issues and have listened during this debate to a wide variety of views from both sides of the argument. Whilst not agreeing with some speakers, I can respect their differing opinions regarding this legislation. In a measured and reasoned way, they have outlined their case and put forward their reasons for not supporting the bill during this debate, often depicting religious or other evidence to support their position. Sadly, though, we have also heard some extreme and unhelpful comments that border on the fanatical, which have done little to forward the negative case and say more about the people making the arguments than about the issue at hand. Statements such as those made by the member for Dawson, in drawing a comparison with the Nazis' experimentation on the Jews, and by the member for Barker, similar with regard to the Jewish people and then referring to this legislation as a form of murder while still supporting the current practice of destroying embryos, are quite obscene. I can only deduce that the statements were made to solicit a response from the media, because they did little to help with the negative case. Fortunately, though, in this debate such comments have been very rare.I would like to move on to why I support this legislation. Firstly, we are talking about national legislation which has been agreed to by all states and territories. It is very important that we have legislation which is national, as each of the states have already stated that they may go off and prepare their own. So you could have the situation where particular rules apply in New South Wales, another set of rules apply in Victoria and something else applies in Western Australia. In that case, researchers will go from state to state getting the best deal that they possibly can for their particular research. Therefore, it is vitally important that we have this national legislation and a national framework.As has already been stated by many speakers, the issue at hand is what we do with surplus embryos. The current practice is that, after a certain period of time, those embryos are destroyed. People have said that they might be put on the bench, and allowed to thaw out and then pass on naturally. But, at the end of the day, what is happening with those embryos is that they are being destroyed. The argument boils down to destruction versus research. And I do not see anybody getting up here, particularly those who are claiming that we should not do research and that we are, in fact, murdering such embryos, and arguing that we should be keeping them in cold storage or doing something else with them. Very clearly, if we can help the millions of people who are suffering by coming up with something worthwhile from that research, I believe we should go ahead with it. Another aspect of this bill is that it bans human cloning. I totally support the concept that human cloning should be banned. I also support the view that the bill should be split to allow those people who are opposed to stem cell research the opportunity to vote for the anticloning component of the bill whilst not voting for the embryonic stem cell research component. We have talked about public opinion in relation to the bill, but the reality is that a Roy Morgan international survey in 2001 revealed that most people in Australia—that is, 72 per cent—favoured scientists using stem cells extracted from excess embryos to treat diseases. So, overwhelmingly, the majority of the public supports the view that embryonic stem cell research should continue. We have also heard questions about when life begins. I thought it might be helpful to put my perspective on this so that people can understand where I am coming from. I do not believe that you can actually say life begins at a certain point, as some people have said. I do not believe that the view that life begins 40 days after conception or it happens here or it happens there is really sustainable. My view is that, once an egg is fertilised and it starts to split and the cells start to grow, that could be considered as life, because that is really where life begins. But, having said that, I still believe that we should go ahead with embryonic stem cell research—and there are some practical examples as to why that should occur.In my electorate, for example, a lot of people suffer from juvenile diabetes. Every year the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation of Australia conducts a walk for a cure, which goes around the bridges in Perth and starts and finishes in my electorate. People who have juvenile diabetes, the young people who really need our support, could benefit dramatically from this legislation. It may be said that we do not know for sure they will be assisted, and that is true. But that does not mean we should not try to do something for them.It is my understanding that adult stem cells cannot actually replicate heart muscle tissue, so you have a lot of trouble there, whereas embryonic stem cell research could help that and a whole raft of other diseases and conditions. People have quoted personal examples of individuals they know who could be assisted. Some years ago my former brother-in-law was involved in a traffic accident, which put him into a wheelchair. He became a paraplegic. He is a wonderful person whom I have not seen for many years. He is a committed Christian who would probably oppose this legislation. But my view is that, if he could have stem cells inserted into his spine to help regenerate his spinal cord, enabling him to walk, I would be very supportive.Obviously, these embryos are surplus to the IVF program. There has been some argument about using adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells, and I would like to cover that argument. I am going to quote from information that has been provided to me by the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation of Australia because they have actually come up with some very relevant information to do with this bill. They state: Typically, adult stem cells will be of little use where they are difficult to obtain from the area in which they are required. For example, for diseases of the brain, nerves etc, it is more likely that embryonic stem cell ... research will be more effective. This is because the ES Cells have greater ability to be coaxed to become any cell in the body (pluripotent) and can also replicate easily outside the body. Catherine Verfaillie, in the article in Nature, found that there are some bone marrow adult stem cells which are more versatile than scientists originally thought. However, it is still very difficult to firstly isolate sufficient numbers of those adult stem cells (which are very rare and do not replicate easily outside the body) and, secondly, to coax them into becoming what you need them to become. Adult stem cells are most commonly found in the blood and in bone marrow, making the diseases related to these areas most likely to be cured using adult stem cells. However, saying that, for both adult and embryonic stem cells, there are so many unanswered questions relating to how these cells will operate in clinical trials, it is vital to continue working both fields to ensure that the best solution is found as quickly as possible!Spinal Cord Injury/MS/Transverse Myelinitis (embryonic)Scientists at Washington University School of Medicine (2000), have turned embryonic stem cells into nervous system cells which, when injected into the spinal cord of injured rats reinstated the nerve axioms that carry messages up and down the spinal cord allowing some movement to be reinstated to the animal. As yet, little significant progress has been made using adult stem cells.Parkinson's (embryonic)An exciting breakthrough in Parkinson's was announced very recently (McKay, June 2002, Nature). Mice embryonic stem cells have been developed into nerve cell precursors that secrete dopamine, which suggests that they can be used to eliminate symptoms of Parkinson's disease in rats. As yet, little progress has been made using adult stem cells to cure Parkinson's, although work is being done in this area.Diabetes (embryonic)... researchers have cured diabetes in the animal model. (Published in Diabetes, February 2000). This work is now being extended, using human embryonic stem cells. Very little, if no, progress has been made in using adult stem cells for curing diabetes.HIV/Cancer (adult)Monash scientists have used adult stem cells to grow a thymus in mice. The thymus cells may be useful to restore the immune system in HIV and Cancer patients. (Nature Immunology, June 2002). No breakthroughs have been made, as far as I know, in embryonic stem cell research in this area. They are a number of different arguments for and against. My view is that we need to have both. Clearly, there are advantages in adult stem cells in some areas and advantages in embryonic stem cells in others.During the course of this debate we have heard a lot of people talking about the actual IVF program, people who have opposed the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 yet supported the IVF program. I find this to be quite unusual. It is unusual because people have not recognised that, in order for the IVF program to be developed in the first place, there had to be embryonic research. If it is embryos or stem cell research involving embryos, at the end of the day you are talking about embryonic research. Many hundreds or thousands of embryos would have been destroyed in the process of coming up with the IVF program. If you are opposed to embryonic stem cell research, surely you must be opposed to the whole IVF program.Additionally, people who support IVF but do not like the research continuing also fail to acknowledge that 50 to 90 per cent of donors want research to take place on their excess embryos because they believe they would rather see something positive happen from those surplus embryos than have them discarded. People often fail to recognise, too, that in implanting embryos for the purposes of IVF, 60 to 80 per cent of all those embryos that are implanted fail. In other words, they die; they pass away. On one hand, you are justifying the fact that IVF is fine because the result is that you end up with children; on the other hand, you are also destroying embryos in the process of bringing about that life. My view is that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot be opposed to it, on one hand, in terms of research which may cure others but supportive, on the other, because it produces life even though embryos are used in that process.Historically, we find that people have been opposed to the world's great medical breakthroughs at the time they occurred. But they then look back later and realise they were very worthwhile advances. For example, I wonder how many people were opposed to blood transfusions? When that technology was developed years ago, there would have been a dramatic number of people who were opposed to it. Yet we look back now and we know that blood transfusions are vitally important because many thousands of lives have been saved as a result of them. The same would have happened with transplants. Transplant technology has been developed over many years. People would have argued at that time that you cannot transplant organs from one person to another—`It's not ethical, it's not moral and it's not right.' We now believe that transplant technology is fine. It is a bit like years ago when Christopher Columbus, I think, was going to be nailed as a heretic because he believed that the world was round instead of flat. He sailed off into the distance and, in the end, we found that the world was round—and we have gone on from there.In history, we have had cutting edge technology. Embryonic stem cell research is cutting edge technology. People have said there is no proof that it works. I heard the member for Dawson saying that, in a range of areas, there has been nothing that has actually suggested it works. But one of the reasons for that is that there has not been the research. My argument is that you have to have the research. After the research you can turn around and say, `It didn't work.' But you cannot say that if you have not tried. So it is very important to actually conduct the research.It has been suggested that, if we go down this path, we are on a slippery slope: that it is the short course towards cloning and a whole raft of other unacceptable practices. I believe that this sort of argument about the thin end of the wedge is just a scare tactic. At the end of the day whether it is a slippery slope or whether it is the thin end of the wedge is determined by us. It is determined by members of parliament who say, `No.' Members of parliament have to keep the scientific community honest. We have to look at all the arguments, based on merit, and make a decision in each particular case as it comes before us. That is the only thing that we can do. I think it is very important to look at this issue in that context.In conclusion, the benefits of supporting this legislation outweigh the concerns. I mentioned earlier that my view is that morally, ethically and philosophically I would have to support this legislation because I believe it is the best course of action. I say that because we have the opportunity here to pass legislation in a national framework which may—or may not—lead to a reduction in suffering for millions of people and the cures for diseases in the future. I, for my own part, believe that I could not oppose this legislation, given the possible benefits that it could provide to mankind. Therefore, I support the legislation and I commend the bill to the House.10:56:006049Ciobo, Steven, MPMr CIOBO00AN0MoncrieffLP10—I recently received correspondence, from which I quote:Each vote will reflect the politician's life experience. Yet these life experiences may not embrace the experiences of people suffering from Parkinson's disease, diabetes or motor neuron disease—people whose lives may be extended or improved if the legislation is passed. Thus a vote for the legislation may be considered a vote for moral good, extending and improving the life of many. However, those whose experiences embrace a theological commitment, with the fundamental belief that God created us as unique individuals and that all life is sacred, may consider the use of unwanted embryos for research to be interfering with the good purposes of God. Thus a vote against would be considered a vote for the moral good, as it reflects the will of God. This letter was from the parents of a 45-year-old man, a man who was diagnosed with motor neuron disease five years ago, a man who is a husband and a father of three. His parents, active members in their local Baptist church, wrote to me to outline their support for the bill currently being considered by this parliament. They wrote to me to outline their view that support for this bill is not, as a matter of course, immoral. When I received this letter I placed it in the exponentially growing file of research and background material that I have since studied in reaching my conclusion, the conclusion that I now outline.From the outset I have approached the debate surrounding this bill with an open mind and a keenness to learn. My life experiences and personal Christian beliefs have, appropriately, influenced my reasoning. Importantly, I believe, I have also actively sought the opinions of my electors, weighed the merits of technical, scientific promulgations from men and women much more learned than I on these issues and ultimately sought peace with the conclusion that I have reached. I can sincerely state that in speaking in support of this bill this morning I do so comfortable that I am upholding the view of the majority of my constituents and with the utmost respect for the sanctity of human life. Fundamentally there can be no greater responsibility placed upon the people's representatives than to determine the parameters of decency and sanctity with respect to humanity. To me it is a moral absolute that each and every individual is a most precious life, a life to be respected. Life, however, remains a terrific enigma. In approaching this bill I was initially envious of those who professed from day one to know this bill to be right or to be wrong. I was hopeful that I might have the same insight, the same clarity and the same absoluteness. Since then, however, my view has changed. As I delved into the issues, both technical and ethical, I realised this to be a complex issue beyond any I have faced previously, and beyond any I hope to address in the near future. To innately know this issue to be right or wrong, to have formed an immediate opinion without considering the weighty issues that exist on both sides of the argument is, in my humble opinion, intellectually and morally elitist. The principal struggle for me, the exhausting wrestle with conscience, is that I find both sides have the moral imperative. Indeed, throughout this debate I have teetered from one side to the other. Some may quickly judge this to be a weakness of spirit. That is wrong. It is a reflection of the merit that exists on both sides of this debate. In seeking to tip my judgment, I concerned myself with the science—the embryonic stem cell versus the adult stem cell fight. Ostensibly, this has been a fight punctuated by newspaper headlines launching the claims and counterclaims.Unlike most in the community, I have had the unique opportunity of having a parade of this country's and other countries' eminent scientists and ethicists, comprising those in favour and against, to whom I could pose my questions and from whom I could reap the benefit of decades of collective knowledge. For the record, it is my view that there is a strong scientific basis supporting embryonic stem cell research. I directly questioned those scientists opposed to embryonic stem cell research and asked them to put aside their ethical considerations and to answer purely on the basis of science whether the possibilities espoused by embryonic stem cell advocates were bad science. Resoundingly, the answer was no. Embryonic stem cell research does present possibilities that adult stem cell research does not. This was an important discovery for me. I wanted to be satisfied that there existed a sound, scientific basis for researchers to even ask for the ability to conduct this research before I tackled the ethical considerations of the debate. I sought the technical views of those whose life work has been adult stem cell research, as well those who work with embryonic stem cells.However, the fact that there is a scientific benefit to this research does not of course clear the path of all uncertainty. It does not signify a green light for any or all experiments involving human embryos. For me, however, it does serve to reduce this debate to the deliberation of the morality of embryonic stem cell research. In resolving this issue, I would turn to the actual object of the bill. There are two principal limbs to this bill. The first is an absolute prohibition on human cloning. This is a prohibition I have no difficulty supporting and, further, I believe no person in this chamber has difficulty supporting. In the world today, I am always mindful of the rapid advances taking place, advances that only a couple of years ago we would never have envisaged, advances that have completely eradicated some diseases and that present the potential to continue to improve the physical quality and duration of life. There are, however, always those who, in their quest for the scientific breakthrough, pierce community standards of acceptability—standards that my colleagues and I are elected to promote, to fight for and, ultimately, to enforce. Human reproductive cloning falls outside of these standards.The second limb of this bill is the establishment of a nationally agreed and enforced framework outlining the parameters of embryonic stem cell research. This framework is structured such that stem cells would only be permitted to be donated by couples who, through their involvement in the IVF program, have created blastocysts or embryos that will not be implanted and, as such, will be destroyed. It is these two points that, ultimately, make up the deciding influence in my decision to support this bill. If it were not for the fact that couples are able to choose whether to donate their surplus embryos and the fact that these embryos would otherwise be destroyed, then I would not support this bill.I wish to acknowledge the very fine speech by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Aston. His speech, to my mind, encapsulated the very crux of this issue. He stated:What is important, I believe, in this debate is to keep our eyes on what we are being asked to consider and not on what might be. We are not being asked to determine the fate of these embryos. Whatever we decide, their fate is to be destroyed. We are only asked to determine how they should be destroyed: as part of a research program to benefit future generations or simply discarded as waste product.I am an organ donor. Should my body be able to be used by science for the benefit of my fellow man when I pass away, I have no compunction whatsoever that my body, or any part of it, be used in this way. I do not know when my time will come; however, even if I did, that would not alter what I believe is an altruistic motivation. Likewise, I would put myself in harm's way for those for whom I care and I know that those who care for me would do the same. Indeed, that is one of the most endearing and remarkable aspects of humanity.There are those who profess that the love of life—the fight for survival—is the most primal of human motivations. I disagree. The greatest stories I know are stories of sacrifice. Indeed, the single greatest story of mankind's history is the story of personal sacrifice. In keeping with this wonderful human trait, I cannot accept that the permission of couples to donate their surplus embryos to science for research that may—and, we pray, will—improve life for future generations should be prohibited. I cannot reconcile the view that IVF, the very procedure that gives rise to the surplus embryos we are discussing, is morally acceptable with the view that couples donating surplus embryos that would otherwise be destroyed are immoral. My decision to support the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 has been difficult. Ultimately, however, I can sincerely state that I have taken all factors into consideration. I have sought the counsel of many and reached a conclusion rather than found a justification to entrench a presumption. I entered this debate with my eyes open to all aspects: scientific, moral and political. I have addressed the first two of these and now focus on a political consideration that has weighed heavily on my mind. This bill represents the culmination of much political pragmatism. Despite strongly held convictions and a plethora of competing considerations, the Prime Minister has successfully distilled a common purpose into this bill. This bill is an article of compromise from all sides of this debate. Unsurprisingly, throughout the narrative to this debate, I have heard the assortment of calls from those irritated by compromise. Their calls threaten that, should this bill not be passed, they will pursue their own path.The loudest of these calls is from the state premiers of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, who have repeatedly warned that, should this Commonwealth bill fail, they will enact legislation far less restrictive than what we are debating here today. Although state legislation is not formalised, it is clear to me from comments made by the premiers that their legislation would not be limited to those surplus embryos created prior to the date of agreement reached between the Prime Minister and the premiers. Rather, state legislation would apply to all surplus embryos. This bill requires the consent of donor couples; state legislation would not require that consent. The public record clearly indicates that state legislation—the legislation that would be introduced if this compromise bill were defeated—would be less restrictive. I expect that that outcome would be far more repugnant to those concerned about the ethics of this debate.That said, I do not support this bill under duress. I do so for all the reasons I have outlined. However, if I did oppose this bill, I most certainly would suffer if my words of opposition clashed so drastically with the outcome of my actions. I would struggle if my vocal resistance to embryonic stem cell research actually resulted in an opening of the floodgates for far less restrained research within a state based framework. The vote of each politician is a reflection of their life experience. This experience is a collection of decisions—each, ideally, made through the consideration of previous experiences and with a view to the destination. In this case, my support for this bill today reflects a Christian view of the nature of life, a belief in altruistic motivation and, importantly, a hope for a destination in which human life is less plagued by the shackles of disease.11:09:006052Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—There is a marvellous atmosphere prevailing in this debate in this chamber. I have been impressed as I have watched it on the television screen in my office, and when I have been able to hear it in the other chamber and in this place. Clearly, people have put themselves to a great deal of trouble to research these issues. They have struggled with their consciences and have enjoyed perhaps for the first time—for new members anyway—a sense of liberation in actually making up their own mind about something in this place. The product of it all has been a debate of a very high intellectual calibre. I am not sure the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is so dramatic that it quite deserves that level of attention. Certainly, much has been invested in it by both its opponents and its supporters in terms of where it leaves the human condition. When its innards are examined, and the previous speaker did that to some degree, there is less to this bill than meets the eye. Having made that point, I want to declare at the outset that I will be voting for this piece of legislation.It is one of those occasions when, at least in some of the argument that has been made for my side—I hasten to say that this does not apply to anybody who has spoken in the last few minutes—you would like to support the motion but oppose the speeches and the advocacy. There have been levelled at some of the opponents of this bill quite gratuitous insults as to both their motivation and their status as exponents particularly of the Catholic church—quite gratuitous insults, some of them emanating from some of the scientists who have been very directly engaged in advocating the course of action which is being pursued here. They have retracted what they had to say, but the thought is out there. I want to completely deprecate those views. Those of a religious persuasion who bring to the debate in this place or to the debate in the community generally ethical arguments informed by their religious convictions have a perfect right to do so and have a perfect right to attempt in their advocacy to see their views successfully upheld by a broad majority of the community. That is what a democracy is about. You try and constrain to some extent a winner-take-all environment in a democracy; nevertheless, it is the case that, if you have a set of profound convictions, the democratic system permits you to bring those to the table. You are entitled to do that without abuse, and therefore I deprecate those who have sought to characterise opponents of this bill in that particular manner.There is another reason why we ought to be careful about suggesting that there is a dichotomy here between moral and ethical judgment on the one hand—they have only a certain limited efficacy when it comes to debating the pursuit of pure science—and pure science on the other hand. We are always constraining scientists—always—for moral and political reasons. When I was a defence minister, we constrained scientists in this country from participating in the United States program the Strategic Defence Initiative. We did so because we considered that it was likely to be destabilising internationally if the objectives sought by that program were achieved. It would increase the likelihood of nuclear war, about which we had some very profound moral judgments. So we brought to the table then an ethical argument related to the subject of research associated with the Strategic Defence Initiative. As the previous speaker indicated, this bill is chock-a-block full of moral judgments and ethical understandings. We have made moral judgments against human cloning. There is no doubt the scientists can take us down that road, should they be permitted by the law of the land. There is no doubt too that, were they to take us down that road, there might be some interesting things found out as that process was undertaken by them. Nevertheless, we say no. Indeed, insofar as human cloning involves whole human cloning, you can forget about a free vote in the Labor Party on that issue. Anybody who advocated in this place whole human cloning via legislation who happened to be a Labor Party member would be expelled from the Labor Party, because he or she would be standing in breach of Labor Party policy.So we are making ethical judgments, not scientific judgments, about human cloning. We are also bringing ethical judgment to the fundamental element of this bill, which deals with permitting stem cell lines to be drawn from embryos for embryonic research to take place. We are hedging it with enormous constraints. We are doing that obviously because we think there are some ethical issues involved that require a capacity for the community to continue to readdress them. We are determining, for example, that there should be no effective farming of human embryos; that is ruled out by this legislation. We are determining that there should be a time limit on it, an effective sunset clause, for it to be reviewed so we can see the implications of it yet again. You do not do these things where you think you are walking through in ethical clear light; you do these things because you think there may be problems. So constraints are being built around the program that is being put forward.Personally, I do not have any particular difficulties with this. As far as I am concerned, human life begins when a fertilised egg is implanted in a mother's womb and that is when the debate starts on life and the circumstances in which life may be terminated. I have never been comfortable with the view that the only issue involved in abortion, for example, is a right to choose. Whether those issues should be dealt with in the Criminal Code or a health act is another matter. But I have always taken the view that there are a multiplicity of ethical, political and human considerations that go into the termination of life during a pregnancy. All these issues and the right to choose through to the question of the rights of an unborn child have to be considered as a regime of laws or regulations is devised to deal with them.We have had some great moral debates, both within my political party and within this parliament as a whole, over the question of life and its sanctity. We had one in the previous parliament in relation to euthanasia. We debate all too frequently in parliament motions related to the dispatch of Australian troops overseas into war zones; we debate war issues. It seems to me that these issues are more intensely focused on the preservation of human life than anything that is contained within this bill—these particular debates are more sensibly focused on the issues under which it is permissible to take human life. Perhaps those who advocate a life perspective in those debates are not necessarily well served by having this debate seen as a harbinger of the carriage of their moral arguments. I think it is a very imperfect vessel for the carriage of argument on the question of a right to life.As the previous speaker pointed out, whatever your view—whether you agree with me that life begins in the womb or with the opponents of this legislation that it is capable of being regarded as constructed, in the first instance, effectively, in a test tube—unlike those other debates about war and euthanasia, one thing you can be certain about with the successful passage of this bill is that not a single extra life will be taken, not one. Whatever your view, not a single extra life will be taken because, as previous speakers have pointed out, this is a question of the utilisation of embryos which are to be discarded as a result of their no longer being required in the IVF program.In a way we are having a debate here not about stem cell research but about the IVF program, a debate that perhaps should have taken place 20-odd years ago. The debate did not occur then. Some members of this parliament did take those issues seriously at the time. I pay some tribute to Senator Harradine, who over the years has sought to raise these sorts of moral issues—even though I do not agree with the propositions he has put forward—that he believes are involved in that particular program. So, when ultimately he makes his contribution in the Senate, he at least can draw on a long historical record of focusing on the question of the status of human embryos being brought into a particular program which now provides that opportunity for them to be considered in relation to broader research rather than simply research relating to the program with which they are directly associated. As other speakers have pointed out, there has been plenty of embryonic research going on for a very long time in relation to the IVF program in the course of which embryos are destroyed, as indeed they are destroyed in the program itself. There has been no substantial ethical criticism of that process. Part of the reason lies in the motivation behind the IVF program. Women who enter the IVF program love life. Women who enter the IVF program enhance life. Women who enter the IVF program stand for life in our community; there is no question about that. I know many women who have been engaged in the IVF program. One I know extremely well—she is not a wealthy woman—has spent the best part of $60,000 on her two children. She loves them, and I suppose part of the reason why those who have ethical difficulties find it so hard to confront the IVF program, which raises exactly the same issues as this particular bill raises, is that you cannot confront those women and place them in the box of people who are not serious about the issues of a right to life and an opportunity for life and an opportunity for a decent life. You simply cannot do it. There is no capacity to do so. It has to be said, though, that there are some women engaged in the IVF program who are mindful of the destruction of human embryos and there is a group of people who advise on how you might keep only a very limited number for the purpose of utilisation within the program, that you do not produce a plethora of these. You have a conversation with your doctor in order to be able to limit the extent to which, at the conclusion of the program, human embryos have to be destroyed. It is possible to do that, and there are a lot of women who run a process with their doctors attempting to keep that constrained. But at the end of the day, when all is said and done, there will be some, nevertheless, destroyed by the process in which they engage.I do not want to rehearse all the possible medical benefits that will accrue from the passage of this bill; plenty of people have done that. Just as we are all aware of women in the IVF program, we are all aware of people who have motor neurone diseases or diabetes or who suffer from Alzheimer's or Parkinson's—we know all of that. We also know, because there is no scientific argument against the proposition, that there are real possibilities of finding cures or aids to dealing with the consequences of these illnesses. We know that stem cell lines research produced from this process that will be permitted by this legislation may well have outcomes that are very beneficial to people suffering from those conditions. I do not need to rehearse those here; they are scarcely contested issues in this debate anyway. The only contested issue is whether or not you will get enough out of adult stem cells in that regard, not that you will not get something from the process that will be approved here.I want to conclude where the last speaker concluded, having acknowledged the possibilities of very good research and very helpful research emerging from this, to make the final point. If this bill is defeated, the issue does not go away. You are dealing with a bunch of state governments that want to place themselves at the head of the biotechnology revolution. Ask yourself this question: are you likely to get more or less restrictive legislation out of a Bracks, a Beattie, a Carr, a Gallop or a Rann when it comes to dealing with these particular issues? If this is dropped, if the Commonwealth does not proceed in this regard, there is no doubt at all that the states which are now competing to be the biotechnological research centre of Australia will be straight onto it with far less restrictive legislation than this.The final point I make is that, whether or not they do do that in the event of the failure of this legislation here, you can absolutely guarantee this: even if no research takes place in this country, research will take place elsewhere. That research will produce cures and all of us will take those cures if we actually happen to have the condition. We will not morally separate ourselves out from the product of the science that is conducted successfully elsewhere. We will not do that. In the light of all of that, I do believe that it is sensible for us to pass this legislation.11:25:006055Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very lucky that, by accident, I have been in this chamber to hear the speeches of both the member for Moncrieff and the member for Brand. I think that they have been both considered and insightful. The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 implements the agreement of the Prime Minister, the premiers and the chief ministers to regulate activities involving human embryos. Not surprisingly, protagonists in the debate over this bill have focused on the deficiencies that they perceive in the regulatory regime that it creates. It is nonetheless important to draw attention to the fact that the bill does in part implement what the Australian community has expressed a widespread consensus on. By prohibiting the creation, development, import and export of human embryo clones, the bill does address the grave fear held by many that scientists will produce babies which are substantially genetically identical to another human being. This implements not only the agreement of COAG, but also the unanimous recommendation on reproductive cloning made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs—a recommendation following wide public consultation. I support this prohibition on human cloning. The creation of a national regulatory regime permitting research involving human embryos in limited circumstances is much more controversial. The limits that this bill imposes on research and therapeutic use of embryos are of concern to some members of our community. On the other hand, the fact that this bill creates a scheme to regulate research on embryos, rather than banning research on embryos completely, is abhorrent and unacceptable to others. In this situation of competing ethical beliefs, it is doubtful if even Solomon's wisdom would yield a universally acceptable resolution. This bill does not achieve a probably impossible consensus. It does, however, seek to strike a balance. After a careful consideration of the current state of knowledge about both adult and embryonic stem cells and the reality that excess IVF embryos are routinely discarded, I have come to the view that the balance struck by this bill is appropriate and necessary at this time.The bill prohibits the removal of an embryo from a woman's body with the intention of collecting a viable human embryo. It also prohibits the creation of human embryos outside the body of a woman for any purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a particular woman. This bill does basically prohibit the creation of embryos for the purpose of research. However, there are already thousands of embryos in existence in Australia which will probably never be used for the purpose for which they were created. These embryos are artificially created as part of an assisted reproductive technology treatment program. They are what are commonly thought of as IVF embryos which are not used for fertility treatmentor approved research. These embryos may not be kept indefinitely.The existing patchwork of legislation, regulations and guidelines requires that, after a period of time ranging between five and 10 years, embryos artificially created for fertility treatments but not used in them must be removed from storage and disposed of. In practice, I understand this involves excess IVF embryos being removed from storage, where they are frozen in liquid nitrogen, and allowed to come to room temperature. Exposing the embryos in this way destroys any capacity for the embryos to develop, and they are then disposed of as refuse. It is estimated that between 2,000 and 5,000 IVF embryos are discarded in Australia every year. This bill permits research to be conducted, if certain conditions are met, only on these embryos which would otherwise be destroyed and thrown away. Accordingly, to allow research to be conducted on those embryos does not deprive them of a chance of developing which they would otherwise have had.As well as limiting the possible subjects of research to existing surplus artificially created embryos, the bill establishes a licensing regime and imposes conditions which further limit the research which may be conducted. These include requirements that proper consent be obtained, that an ethics committee approves the research and that consideration be given to the likelihood that the research will result in a significant advance in knowledge or improvement in treatment. An embryo created for IVF may not be used for research unless all the people responsible for that embryo consent to this being done. The egg and sperm donors, the woman for whom the embryo was created and, if the donors and the patient have spouses, each spouse, need to give consent to the proposed use.The licensing committee may only grant a licence for a particular research proposal if the proposed activity has been assessed and approved by a human research ethics committee, acting in compliance with the relevant NHMRC's national statement on ethical conduct. The licensing committee must have regard to the likelihood that the research will result in a significant advance in knowledge or an improvement in treatment technologies which is not likely to be reasonably achievable by alternative means. For the time being, of the limited number of embryos which may be used for research at all, an even more limited number may be used for activities which may be damaging or destructive to the embryos. A licence for research of this nature may only be granted in respect of excess IVF embryos which were created before 5 April this year. I understand that this is the subset of artificially created embryos which would be available for stem cell research because the extraction of embryonic stem cells does destroy the embryo just as disposing of the embryo under existing ART protocols destroys the embryo. This restriction is for up to three years. However, even after that time, because the legislation imposes restrictions on the method of creation of embryos and the purposes for which embryos may be created, the deliberate creation of excess embryos is prohibited. Mr Deputy Speaker, several arguments have been advanced against allowing research on embryos even within the extremely constrained parameters provided for in this bill. I will address four of them. The first argument put forward is that research on embryos is unnecessary and unjustified because adult stem cells offer great therapeutic potential without the same ethical challenges as the use of embryonic stem cells. Indeed, at least some of the therapeutic benefits of adult stem cells are well established, for example, the use of bone marrow in treatment of blood disorders and diseases. However, it is my understanding that there are a number of reasons why adult stem cells are not the equivalent of embryonic stem cells and that the two areas of research are in fact complementary and neither should be pursued to the exclusion of the other. I understand that adult stem cells do not have the same ability that all embryonic stem cells have to differentiate into any tissue in the body. They are not present in the human body in large numbers, they do not replicate indefinitely, and embryonic stem cells offer potential for advancement of knowledge in areas that adult stem cells do not. For example, embryonic stem cell research may increase understanding about cell division, cell differentiation and human development, and this may assist scientists studying such areas as birth defects, cancer and the ageing process. It does seem likely that research in these two areas will be, if I can use that word, symbiotic. If research involving embryos is prohibited, the full therapeutic potential of such cells will never be realised. Further, it is likely that such a prohibition would inhibit the development of knowledge that would have application to areas other than direct therapeutic use of stem cells. For these reasons, I do not accept the arguments about the potential of adult stem cells as sufficient justification to prohibit all research on embryonic stem cells.A second argument against permitting embryonic stem cell research is that the resources would be better allocated to research on adult stem cells to the exclusion of embryonic stem cells. For myself, I genuinely do not think that it is the role of this parliament to prohibit a particular path of research on the basis of an assertion that it is likely to be less successful than an alternative path. Despite the fact that we regard ourselves very highly across a wide range of areas, I simply do not believe that we have the expertise necessary to make that sort of judgment. Mr Deputy Speaker, a third argument against a legislative regime permitting research involving embryos is that this is in some way an inappropriate surrender to scientists' demands for access to embryos. The bill does facilitate, to a certain extent, the ability of scientists in Australia to expand the existing knowledge about embryonic stem cells. However, it is transparent that this bill does not give scientists carte blanche to create or obtain, by any possible method, any and all human embryos. I emphasise that the embryos that may possibly be made available for research are a limited number of embryos that have been artificially created in a fertility treatment program and ultimately not required for use; embryos which are not allowed to be kept frozen in suspended existence forever and which therefore have to be disposed of. I also note the concern expressed by some IVF practitioners that this bill in fact increases restrictions on the use of embryos, at least in the field of assisted reproductive technology. It also needs to be emphasised that the bill also limits the extent to which new knowledge about embryonic stem cells may be applied for treatment at this time. One of the anticipations about embryonic stem cell research is that it will allow the creation of tissues and organs which are genetically matched to the recipient—so-called therapeutic cloning. Potentially, treatment using genetically matched tissues and organs would not be susceptible to rejection and would remove the complication inherent in using powerful immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection. Clearly, if this could be achieved, it would be a significant advance for medical science. However, research to trial this technique and treatment using this technique are prohibited under this bill as a result of the prohibition on the creation of an embryo other than by fertilisation, the prohibition on the creation of an embryo outside a woman's body other than for assisted reproductive treatment, and the prohibition on the creation, development, import and export of human embryo clones. I think that these examples of activities that will be restricted or prohibited under this legislation are evidence that scientists have not exercised an undue degree of influence in the debate on this issue. I think that the remarks on this issue made by the member for Brand are worth noting.More difficult to address than the foregoing arguments are assertions that the research permitted by this bill ought not be allowed because of a belief that, from the time an embryo is created by the process of fertilisation by whatever means, that entity should be accorded the same status as a person is accorded from birth. I do sincerely respect that view, and I think that the criticisms levelled at some of the proponents of this view are unwarranted. However, the belief that an embryo should be accorded the same status as a child or adult is one that is highly contested in the Australian community. Indeed, some members of the community hold the view that it is unethical not to conduct research on embryos, because that entity has not yet attained the essential quality of humanness, and the research may lead to significant advances in medical knowledge and treatment for diseases and thereby relieve the suffering of people who have an independent existence and consciousness—children and adults with diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's.Between these two polar opposites, there are those who believe that it should be permissible for research to be conducted on excess artificially created embryos which would otherwise be disposed of, in order to further our knowledge of the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells to improve the lives of many members of our community. Having carefully considered the position, having read a large number of submissions from within and outside my constituency and having listened to the debate, I think that this approach is the right one. I cannot see a reason to prevent those embryos, which would otherwise be destroyed, from being used for research that may lead to cures or improved treatments for diseases and disorders including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal injuries and motor neurone disease. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have referred to the potential knowledge and therapies that the research in this area may lead to. The fact is that we can only evaluate the provisions of this bill in the framework of the current state of knowledge. I think that it is wrong to try to anticipate too much, either on the side of the scientific and medical advances which may be facilitated by the research allowed under this regime or in terms of the potential of alternative sources of research, knowledge and therapies. When more is known it will be appropriate to re-evaluate this regime in the light of the more advanced state of knowledge.In a field where knowledge is changing so fast it is appropriate that the issues are reconsidered in a relatively short period of time. The bill provides for this re-evaluation in the form of an independent review of the operation of the legislation two years after it has been assented to. The reviewers must consider and report to COAG on the provisions of the bill that deal with prohibited practices and with the regulation of certain uses involving excess ART embryos. They must take into account developments in technology, developments in medical and scientific research, the potential therapeutic applications of such research and community standards. The reviewers must consult the Commonwealth, the states and a broad range of persons with expertise or experience in relevant disciplines.I believe this bill is a measured response to the enormous scientific developments in this area with appropriate regard to ethical concerns about that research. In time, when we know more about disease and cell development and about the potential of adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells, this bill will be reconsidered. But for now, with the knowledge and expectations for the potential development in this area, I believe this bill strikes the right balance and I commend the bill to the House.11:41:006059Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Before I actually get into the substance of my contribution to this debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, I would like to say that I feel very privileged to have been able to hear the last two speakers. I feel that the thought that they have put in to their contributions has been enormous. They have been very different types of contributions but each of them touched on the issues that people in the community have been thinking about and that we have all been thinking about.It is a very important debate and it is a debate where we, as members of parliament, actually get an opportunity to examine our feelings and look at all the issues that surround it. I think the people of Australia would be quite impressed with what I have heard this morning. Without being political—and please take it that I am not being political here—I feel it is unfortunate that more people have not been able to hear these contributions and that we could not continue the debate downstairs. It really does show parliament and members of parliament in a totally different way to the way we are portrayed each day at question time. It shows us as thinking, caring, feeling individuals, no matter what position we have taken on this piece of legislation.This is a piece of legislation that has engendered enormous debate in the community. As I thought about it I can understand why. It goes to people's philosophical and general values. It looks at life and what life is, when life begins and the value that we place on life at different stages. It looks at research and the benefits that research has for humankind as a whole and balances it against all those ethical issues. It is a very sensitive issue for a number of people. It is an issue that has two extremes in this debate. You have the extreme where people believe that embryos are life; that life has been created. They feel extremely uncomfortable with the destruction of those embryos. They believe that to do that is to actually destroy life; to act as God. On the other hand, you have people who hold the view that not to allow this research to take place is to act as God, judge and jury and that by doing that you are destroying existing life. So I think most members of the parliament would fall between those two extremes.All of us would have received correspondence—some of it very emotive; some letters from one extreme saying, `If you have any decency at all, you would reject this legislation,' to some saying, `If you have any decency at all or care about people, you should accept this legislation because, by refusing to accept this legislation, you are sentencing people to certain death without exploring the research options that are available.' I think that is the framework and the parameters that people's views fit into.This issue, as I have outlined to a degree already, is about embryonic stem cell research. It is about deciding whether the stem cells that are in existence should be used for research and therapeutic means or whether they should be destroyed. Both of those options have enormous ethical issues surrounding them. I have found within the debate that there has been a tendency to focus on a comparison between adult and embryonic stem cells. There has been the argument that adult stem cells are sufficient, adult stem cells are the best and adult stem cells are the answer. The other side of the debate has been that adult stem cells have a place but embryonic stem cells offer a whole new range, a whole new avenue and a much broader approach to research and cures for the diseases that exist within the community. Gustav Nossal in an article in the Canberra Times last week talked about whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells are the answer to the problem. He said:A whole world of research awaits here, involving both the body's growth factors and prescription pharmaceuticals yet to be devised. For this we need access to ESCs and ASCs, and plenty of imaginative test-tube work.I think what Gustav Nossal is saying is that the answer is not just embryonic stem cells or not just adult stem cells; the answer is both types of stem cells and a lot of work put into the development of new technologies or new research. Then maybe a lot further down the track we will have cures for all the diseases that we have been hearing so much about.Each of us comes to this debate with different beliefs, different backgrounds and different experiences, and I am no different to any other member of parliament. Prior to becoming a member of parliament, I worked as a rehabilitation counsellor. I worked with people who had disabilities. I worked on a spinal team and I worked on an acquired brain injury team. I dealt a lot with the families of people who suffered from these injuries and with those who were confined to wheelchairs.When I think back to my time as a rehabilitation counsellor, there are two people I think of particularly. One guy came from West Samoa. He was a big, strapping guy and he had been a sensational football player. Unfortunately, he had not been in a position where he had had that medical advice that, if you have a really long, thin neck, putting your head into a scrum is not the best thing to do. He ended up being a very high level quadraplegic. He was not the type of person who excelled academically. He was the kind of guy whose whole life revolved around football; whose whole identity revolved around football and the Samoan culture.He had problems with breathing from time to time. We had to get him a special bed that you turned him in. There were enormous implications for him. There is nothing that would have been more important to him than to be able to walk again. What I see with stem cell research is that it offers the opportunity—not now, but further down the track, with lots of research and lots of imagination and the test tube work that Gus Nossal refers to in his article—for someone like this person to walk again, or even to enjoy a life where he has more movement. Maybe he will not be able to walk again but he might regain the ability to be able to lift a drink to his mouth.The other person that I think of in relation to spinal patients is someone who was a builder, someone who had a really high work ethic. He came from a German background. One Melbourne Cup Day he had a party. He was there with his wife and his kids. He dived into the pool. He did not hit the bottom but there must have been a weakness in the neck or something like that. He was flown down to Royal North Shore Hospital. Twenty-four hours later he had the verdict that he would never walk again and would never be able to brush his hair or enjoy the life that he had enjoyed before.Each and every day of that man's life he spends now trying to use his mind to heal his body. He has exercises that have been devised for him by alternative therapists and very good friends who come and do these exercises for him. His marriage, unfortunately, broke down after the accident. His whole life has changed. The one and only thing that he dreams about is being able to care for himself. I mentioned the ability to brush his hair. That is a really big issue for this man—to be able to brush his hair—because he is a very proud person and very proud about the way he looks.It is because of these types of experiences that I have had in my working life—going back to the fact that each and every one of us comes to this debate from a different background with different experiences—that I would always be very reluctant to prevent research in any area that could help these people, people like these two whom I have just discussed.I have another person I want to talk about. I was down at the shopping centre on Saturday and I bumped into Don McKenzie's sister. Don McKenzie has a son called David who has recently written a book—some of you may have seen that book. David suffers from motor neurone disease. He has been interviewed on the ABC quite regularly lately. He is doing quite well, but his ultimate outcome is that he will die from the disease. Mr McKenzie said that prior to his son getting sick he probably would have said, `Don't support this legislation.' He said that he realises that any cures that come from this research might not help his son, but he also said that it is a different situation to be faced with the loss of one of your children and the impact that it has.He then pointed me to a letter that he had written to the Newcastle Herald in which he talked about Thomas Aquinas, who enunciated the principle of double effect. He believes that in this instance the principle of double effect will allow research using frozen embryos provided that the embryos were brought into life through the IVF program. He believes that the original purpose for which these embryos were created was for good—to provide for life. That goes back to what the member for Brand was saying about hope and how IVF is about life. As a mother, I can identify with what Mr McKenzie said to me and what he wrote in his letter, as each and every one of us who have children can. What would we do if we were to be confronted with having to make a choice about what to do to ensure that their child lived? I was speaking to someone on Sunday night who said they would give their arms, they would give their own life to be able to ensure that their child lived. For people who have sick children, this research is hope, it is the light at the end of the tunnel—for them it presents a future.New research and technology, such as IVF itself, always creates suspicion and people do not accept it readily; they do not accept anything that is new. None of us readily accepts change in our lives, but this is a change not in our life but in our thinking. It is acceptance of new technology. When transplants were first introduced, people tended to be very hesitant about whether or not they would accept that kind of treatment. Anything that is at the cutting edge always creates suspicion and fear about where it might lead. I believe, as Gus Nossal does, that this research is something that we have to embrace; it is something that gives us hope for the future.The thing that I think is so important about this piece of legislation that we are debating today is the fact that it puts in place uniform national regulation. It sets in place ethical parameters and it ensures that there is a high standard of research and that there are controls in place to make sure that it is not misused. As I said a few moments ago, when it relates to the life of a child a lot of people will do anything. In the past there have been situations where people have been prepared to do anything to achieve a result. That is why it is so important that we have in place ethical parameters. That is why it is important that there are boundaries. With the uniform national regulations it is important that throughout Australia the regulations on the way this research operates are identical. It would not be good enough if in one state there was one set of rules and in another state there was another. I refer to what the member for Brand said on the competitiveness and sexiness of being able to attract investment in this new technology.I support this legislation. I think that it has in place safeguards and parameters that will ensure that this is the way forward, that there will be research conducted that will ensure new cures and new hope for people within Australia.12:01:006062Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I too rise to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. The bill falls into two parts, one dealing with the creation of a regulatory regime to manage research involving human embryos and the other banning the cloning of humans or the creation of human hybrids.While I have little doubt that most Australians feel repugnance at the thought of human cloning or the creation of a hybrid human, the other issue in particular gives rise to a moral dilemma for those whose religious or ethical values have them believing that, and I quote from one of my constituents:... the killing of a human embryo is no different to killing a child or adult human.No political party in a robust democracy like ours chooses to mandate what an individual member thinks about the status and rights to life of an embryo and at what stage of cell division that status changes. Hence, the important decision about regulation of research involving embryos has been left up to individuals elected to represent the people of Australia, and I proudly today represent my electorate of Murray in making this contribution to this debate. I do not believe for a minute that the view I have taken and the way I will vote will be considered the right view by all of the constituents of Murray—all of that population of that great part of Australia—but it is a view I have come to and I know it is a view shared by many others in my electorate. I will endeavour to do my best to explain these views as I go through.In coming to my decision on this matter I reflected on the views of the researchers who have made themselves available to either support or condemn the use of embryos, especially embryonic stem cells, in the pursuit of new cures for diseases and debilitating conditions afflicting humans. I have also received a number of responses from my constituents, both in conversation and written form. I listened to them but I reflected first and foremost, and I listened to their views through a filter of my own values that relate to life and death and responsible human behaviour.Like all members here, I have a belief system derived from my own socialisation in a family that faithfully, in my case, attended a Methodist church and who were farmers dealing with the seasonal cycles of livestock rearing, where every day you play God, in a sense—determining what must be done for the good of the flocks or herds, `putting down', as we say, animals that are in pain or suffering, disposing of the still-born or the fox taken lambs and calves.Whilst dealing with the reproduction, life and death of animals can in no way be equated to decisions individuals face when dealing with the disease and suffering of fellow humans, I still think the early exposure to what we call the facts of life and death has informed my attitude about the preservation of life no matter what the quality of that life is or the views of the suffering themselves. I do not believe that life in itself must in every circumstance be promulgated. I believe there are lots of conditions where people need to be put in charge of their own futures. I also do not believe that a human life, with its independently functioning brain and personality, can be defined as commencing at conception. I also believe that benefits may be derived from the use of a non-viable life to help avoid the same suffering in others yet unborn or able to be saved. Hence, I am an organ donor and, faced with the tragedy of a permanent and irretrievable loss of brain function perhaps of my husband or one of my children or my grandchildren—for example, through an accident—I would agree to their organs being donated to try and save another.To me, these are the same order of issues that come to mind when we wrestle with the request from medical scientists that research be allowed on excess IVF embryos—embryos which would otherwise have been destroyed. I support the use of the excess embryos, but only within the strict guidelines and regulatory regime that this bill establishes. For example, a licensing committee would be set up to scrutinise all applications for use of the excess embryos. Informed consent would have to be sought from the parents, who may specify the type of research those excess embryos that have resulted from the IVF program may be used in. The very definition of embryos would need to strictly conform with that described in the legislation: embryos are defined as having a human genome or an altered human genome that has been developing for less than eight weeks since the appearance of the two pro-nuclei or since the initiation of development by other means. Such detail of definition and the criminal sanctions that go with the breaking of the law in this proposed bill are necessary, and I am satisfied that they are sufficient and have been sufficiently resourced by our government so that the new regulatory and monitoring regime can be real.There is no place in the world, much less Australia, for commercial exploitation of embryos for research or their deliberate creation for research. This bill is about parents agreeing to allow an embryo that would otherwise have been destroyed to be made available to help find ways to relieve the suffering of others already in this world or yet to be born. The argument of many is, however, that the adult stem cells that are able to be taken from someone who is perhaps suffering from a disease or has some disability can prove to be just as useful for research into the prevention or cure of disease or the healing of bodies immobilised by accident or disease. And so they argue that there is no need to proceed with research using embryonic stem cells. But it would seem to me, from the evidence, that the potential of embryonic and adult stem cells to cure disease and disability are not the same. Both avenues of research, I believe, should be allowed to continue. Perhaps, in the future, one type of research will prove to be more efficacious than the other but, at this early stage, we do not know enough about the potential for the research to relieve human suffering to prematurely cut off one avenue. Who could look a parent or wheelchair-bound individual in the face and tell them we have prematurely closed off one branch of research which held out some hope of a better life for their loved ones or for them? It is also important that this proposed legislation comes after a great deal of work with the states. Our Prime Minister has worked with the Council of Australian Governments, most careful to ensure that in this proposed regime we can end up in Australia with uniform national regulation with states all complying, so that in this country there will be no scurrying from one state to another to optimise the potential for research because of a system that is not uniform. That is an important part of this bill and a very responsible part.All of us are familiar in our lives with someone who is suffering from an incurable disease—someone who was perhaps born disabled, someone who has perhaps a genetic or inherited disease or disability that makes their life one of prolonged suffering. I want to refer to one family who put forward the name of their son in our newspaper, the Shepparton News, the other day, begging members of parliament to make a decision on stem cell research to give their son, they hope, a chance. The article reads:For the Calley family, the parliamentary debate about whether scientists should be allowed to use discarded IVF embryonic stem cells takes on a special significance. Grant and Tania Calley hope giving scientists the right to use these cells to undertake research could one day make a huge difference for their 9½-year-old son Sean, who suffers from transverse myelitis. The disease affects one in 5 million people and it means Sean has been confined to a wheelchair for four years. At the moment the condition is untreatable. Sean is one of many hundreds of thousands of young people and older people who are living now in hope that embryonic stem cells may make a difference.In concluding, let me read from one of the numerous emails, letters and other notes that I received from people in my electorate wanting to put across their views about this issue. In this case, Mrs Erna Werner's views coincide with mine. She writes: We happily or unhappily declare a person dead when brain function has ceased ... The legal definition of life in this case is active brain function.Logic would demand that unless brain function has begun, then life has not begun. The collection of embryo cells from which the stem cells will come has no brain function and is not sentient.If we can use these unwanted stem cells to heal damage that is now beyond healing, we should do so.We should also bear in mind that the women whose embryo cells are to be used have often been subject to injections of huge amounts of hormones to produce ten months of eggs in one go; amounts which may have future effects on their health. We should not waste their sacrifices.That is another important issue. We understand the pain and trauma that couples undergo when they enter into the IVF treatment program. If they are willing to make a most generous gift of those excess embryos, a gift that may result in a life one day saved, then we should accept that gift. As a nation we should also be very careful. Perhaps we can produce a model for other nations where such research is undertaken in an ethical and moral way and used to make sure that, in the future, we do have less pain and suffering and this research leads to a better life for all.12:12:006064Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—In speaking to the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, I want to note at the outset that the Prime Minister's decision to introduce the legislation has resulted in numerous representations to me by my constituents either in support of or opposition to the bill. Also, I might perhaps acknowledge the strength of the views both for and against the legislation and the considerable sincerity with which these views have been expressed to me.As many speakers during this debate have intimated, there are serious moral issues at stake here, and I very much welcome the decision of the government parties, including Labor, to process this legislation by means of an individual conscience vote. This afternoon I want to take the opportunity to outline my own approach to the legislation. In doing so, I want to express my profound opposition to any measure which might advance or support human cloning. It is my view that parliament has a duty to ensure that no such practice be allowed in Australia, and I am satisfied that there is no risk of this happening as a result of this legislation.What is at stake here is whether or not we allow the use of excess embryos created as a result of the IVF program to be used for scientific research in pursuing cures for people suffering from debilitating and often fatal diseases. Of course, all members of the House look to the day when treatments and cures are available for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and motor neurone, and spinal cord injuries. It has been argued by a number of members during the debate that this should be pursued through adult stem cell research and that the risks of allowing embryonic stem cell research to proceed in parallel with adult stem cell research are too great. At this relatively early stage of research into stem cells, no evidence is available to demonstrate that adult stem cell research can necessarily match the potential advances forecast as a result of embryonic stem cell research. In reality, I think it is far too early to make a judgment about these matters; both lines of research are only at their very beginnings.In these circumstances, the question before the House is: should embryonic stem cell research be prescribed—that is, made illegal and prevented from being pursued by scientists and researchers in Australia? In forming my own view as to how this question should be answered, I am swayed by the fact that the legislation prevents embryos from being created for the purpose of stem cell research and strictly limits the proposed research to existing embryos presently surplus to the IVF program. And my knowledge is that, in accordance with Australian law, all of these pre-existent surplus embryos will in any event be destroyed. I have listened to the respective arguments as to the status of the embryos involved in the proposed research. I know that these embryos consist of ova in the very early stages after fertilisation—five to seven days, and prior to implementation in the mother's womb. I know that, in biological terms, it is argued that conception occurs after a longer process has been completed and that it is more closely identified with implantation than fertilisation. But it seems to me that the right to life argument in support of preimplantation embryos being afforded full status was really lost 25 years ago, when Australia legislated its IVF program and provided for the destruction of surplus embryos not implanted in the mother's womb. At that time and ever since, it has overwhelmingly been considered that, in offering couples a chance to be parents and the joys of having their own children, it was acceptable that the surplus embryos that inevitably came into existence—the ones not implanted—should be destroyed.Given the outstanding results of the IVF program and the wide support it enjoys across the Australian community, I have not heard any serious argument to curtail the program by applying a `life from the moment of fertilisation' interpretation in respect of the program's surplus embryos. In the legislation before the House, I think it most appropriate that strict requirements have been incorporated to require the permission of donors before embryonic stem cell research can be undertaken. Similarly, I think it highly appropriate that the legislation should be subject to a three-year sunset clause, which will ensure its thorough review by this House. I sincerely hope that, when this review is undertaken, it is accompanied by scientific advances resulting from stem cell research which, in the process, bring hope and treatment to the many Australians suffering from what have always been our worst incurable diseases. 12:18:006065Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—As we draw to a close the very long list of speakers on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002—which is a bill for an act to regulate certain activities involving the use of human embryos, to prohibit human cloning and other unacceptable practices associated with reproductive technology, and for related purposes—on which we are shortly to take a free vote, I certainly welcome this opportunity to make some remarks. My first quote this afternoon is from the Prime Minister's second reading speech, where he states: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—research that has the potential to cure disease and to save lives.That really encompasses very much the essence of the discussion. I always have a little concern about the states and the way that they use the federal government, of whatever colour, for their own purposes. But I accept that, in this case, this is the most appropriate path to take. There are some doubts as to constitutionality and the corporations power, and so I am satisfied that this is the best way to go.I acknowledge this afternoon the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, otherwise known as the Andrews committee, and refer to Mr Andrews's opening comments in that report. He talks about there being a national regulatory framework, a ban on cloning, one system of regulation for privately and publicly funded research, legislation regulating human cloning and stem cell research separate from that governing artificial reproductive technologies, any attempt to undertake reproductive cloning subject to criminal penalty, research using cloning techniques being subject to clear legislative parameters, a national licensing body established to regulate human cloning and research using cloning techniques, individual researchers being licensed, the import and export of embryonic stem cells permitted within the framework, and a regulatory framework that is transparent, accountable and responsive. In conclusion, Mr Andrews made the point:These are not matters to be decided behind closed doors by scientists or lawyers, however expert and sincere, without widespread community consultation. Nor are they matters that can be resolved by doing nothing.As a society we are confronted with profound issues that require ongoing attention and discussion.That is what we have done. I welcome the opportunity to have a free vote. It is a very infrequent event in this parliament. It is an opportunity, particularly for a backbencher, to be totally uninhibited and relaxed in terms of party constrictions. I welcome that. It is always a pleasure to see people who are regarded as being on the other side and my colleagues on the government side being very much individuals expressing their own point of view.I have a brief comment to make about Professor Trounson and his now famous white mouse. I think it is very important that the transparency, integrity and accuracy around this very complex issue be right to the forefront of our minds. The discussion that arose yesterday and this morning on current affairs programs around Professor Trounson's comments was that it was germ cells that were injected into that mouse to prove the authenticity of the potential for the new technology. For the purposes of the discussion this morning, I remind members that a germ cell is a sexual reproductive cell and all other body cells are known as somatic cells.Every human being is entitled to have hope. We certainly have to balance that hope for some of these serious diseases and disabilities with not misleading people. There has to be that realistic balance. We come back to that transparency, integrity and ethical approach that we have to have. Those are the hallmarks, the measures, of our democratic society.I support the bill on the precautionary principle. I support the bill for the sake of the simple statistical evidence and for the sake of consistency. We would abolish `the pill', as it is known, and IVF if we were to take this principle right to the black letter of the law. But the overwhelming reason for my support of this legislation—and no doubt I will be regarded as utilitarian in this by many, and I respect that—is that IVF embryos cannot be stored for longer than five years in Victoria, 10 years in South Australia or 15 years in Western Australia. Of course, it is worth saying that IVF patients with stored embryos have three options: they can donate to other couples, which less than 10 per cent agree to do; they can donate to research, which 50 to 60 per cent will not agree to do; or they can destroy the embryos or make that request, which about 25 to 40 per cent agree to do. So that is what happens to embryos with a finite life. I simply remind the chamber that the legislation contains the ability to review: Part 6—Sunset clause, review provision and regulationsDivision 1—RepealRepeal of paragraphs 36(3)(b) and 39(1)(c) and subsection 39(3)Proposed section 36(3)(b) states:(b) if the use of an excess ART embryo proposed in the application may damage or destroy the embryo—that appropriate protocols are in place to enable compliance with the condition that such use is authorised only in respect of an embryo created before 5 April 2002 (see subsection 39(3));That will expire as of 5 April 2005. It is a very important review because the parliament of that time will be required to be part of this eternal vigilance and integral to the continuing debate. In conclusion, I thank all of my colleagues for the advice, the wisdom and the civil debate that has been offered on this issue. But, above all, I thank my constituents, who have engaged in a very constructive and fair-minded approach on either side of this discussion.12:27:006067Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—As other members have come to terms with the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, they like me, I am sure, will have come to the view that this is not an easy issue to make one's mind up about. Those who sit on either side of the argument—those who are strongly for or those who are strongly against—might have some difficulty in seeing the position that people like me, who sit in the middle, have come to.But I have come to a view on this bill, and it has not been an easy view because I have strong views about life. For instance, I oppose abortion except in certain lifesaving circumstances. However, the issues are not that clear in many respects. I have tried to weigh the arguments with my own Christian values; I have tried to sift through the scientific arguments; and I have tried to weigh my own moral judgments about these things and about this bill. I think it is true to say that ultimately we are all products of our own environment, and we are all products of that environment and those values which we form through our own life experiences. One of my life experiences is to have come close to death and to know that I fought with every inch of my willpower and energy, my whole being, because I wanted to live. How can I deny anyone else that right to live—a right to live which may come about because of this bill and the things it might provide for?I have concluded that this bill is about life. I support it. I appreciate a free vote; I appreciate a conscience vote. I appreciate the fact that, ultimately, the way I cast my vote is up to my own conscience. I have weighed the pros and cons, the fors and againsts and, like every other member of parliament, I have come to my own view about my own conscience and about the way that I will cast my vote. And I am confident I have made the right decision. I might say that, while we were given a free vote on an issue like this, I would have voted freely, according to my conscience, anyway. I support the bill.12:31:006067Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I appreciate the opportunity of being able to participate in the debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I appreciate the opportunity to do so on an issue which, as others have said during the course of the debate, essentially is a conscience issue and one in which the electorate has a good deal of interest.In the lead up to this debate and in trying to decide how I should vote on this issue, I have consulted many people in my electorate and, not surprisingly, they hold a diversity of views. I am not sure that I could very accurately say what the balance of opinion would be within my electorate. I have also taken the opportunity to sit down with some of the people who have a high degree of expertise in this area—and at two levels. First of all, at the scientific level, I have met with Professor Grant Sutherland, who is at the Women and Children's Hospital in Adelaide and is a constituent of mine, and Professor Peter Rathjen, who is the Executive Dean of the University of Adelaide's Faculty of Sciences and an extraordinarily eminent scientist—a most impressive man. With them, I have had the opportunity to talk about the technical advantages of stem cell research and get some understanding of the differences between the capacities of both adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research.I have also taken the opportunity, because I am a Christian myself, of meeting with some church leaders and talking to them about this issue. I particularly want to refer to Father John Fleming, who is the Director of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, and Dr Greg Pike, who is the deputy director of the institute. I am an Anglican, actually, and they are both Catholics—but, after all, they are denominations with the same derivation. I was very impressed with the strength of their convictions and the quality of the arguments that they put. They put forward very coherent and logical moral arguments, and they are arguments that must be respected. I think the debate mainly has been held in a fairly civilised way, too, let me say, and I appreciate that. I think too often in this country we have contentious debates conducted with a very solid exchange of abuse—and on this occasion there has been a little, but minimal, amount of that. I do not think many would argue with one of the two central propositions of this legislation, and that is to ban human cloning. I think all of us would agree that the implications of allowing human cloning are uncertain and, to some of us, even somewhat frightening. It raises concepts of eugenics and those who have argued for these things over the generations in some totalitarian regimes; one particularly reflects here on the Nazis during the 1930s and the 1940s. Anyway, the whole notion of breeding out certain genetically inherited characteristics and trying to breed particular types of humanity is one for me which is instinctively anathema, regardless of what the moral arguments may be.The moral arguments are put forward by all of the major religions of the world. They argue that a person's unique identity would be challenged, would be undermined by some system of cloning and that human beings would be treated as a means to an end rather than as ends in themselves, the ultimate of unattractive utilitarian arguments. In any case, to the best of my knowledge there is unanimous support in the parliament in opposition to human cloning. This legislation provides for that.In relation to stem cell research, again there is, I think, a unanimous view that stem cell research is an appropriate way to go. There is not opposition to the concept of stem cell research. Often in this debate that point has been lost. There are many that seem to think that if you vote against this bill then you are opposed to stem cell research. To be fair, many who will vote against this bill favour stem cell research but they think that this can be conducted with adult stem cells, without the use of embryonic stem cells.On the broad issue of stem cell research, this is exciting technology. Genetic modification made to diseased cells could lead to treatment or cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and diabetes. There is an argument, which I think is a persuasive one—I will come to the moral questions later—that using embryonic stem cells, as distinct from adult stem cells, does promise a higher accuracy rate and may lead to the faster development of pharmaceutical treatments.There is no doubt that there has been successful adult stem cell research undertaken, but there are advantages in using embryonic stem cells that do not exist with adult stem cells. Clearly, embryonic stem cells can multiply in the way adult stem cells cannot. Adult stem cells lack the flexibility that embryonic stem cells have, and there is the argument, which I think is a persuasive one, that the DNA of adult stem cells can be damaged in one way or another including as a result of disease or environmental factors. There is a purity about embryonic stem cells that is not available with adult stem cells. So there is, I think, a persuasive argument in terms of the use of embryonic stem cells.Many have quoted from their constituents, which I think has been very appropriate in this debate. I will join with them and quote a letter that I received from a couple, Stephen and Elena Voss, who live in the township of Stirling in my electorate. They wrote to me on 10 July this year urging me to vote for the legislation. The Voss's said:In January this year our three year old son Matthew was diagnosed with type 1 (juvenile) diabetes. For a child of his age he copes well with his painful daily regime of finger-pricks and insulin injections but it isn't easy. As his parents it is very difficult to accept that he must spend the rest of his life performing a daily balancing act to stay healthy, indeed to stay alive. To think that his life may be significantly shortened by diabetes is hard to bear—you can imagine a parent feeling that. They continue:Even harder to bear would be the thought that our parliamentarians prevented our researchers from possibly finding a cure. The men, women and children who are suffering from life-threatening diseases are engaged in a race against time. It is our responsibility to make sure that they benefit as quickly as possible from the very best that science and technology has to offer. Please vote yes for embryonic stem cell research so we and so many others can live in hope for a cure.I have letters against as well, based essentially on the moral arguments. But it strikes at one when a parent writes to you and says that you should support this legislation because it provides the maximum opportunities to ensure that research can be conducted to alleviate suffering. This point about the parent is very important. One of the tests I often set myself when I consider these issues—it is an emotional test; it is not an intellectual test—is, if one of my children, and I have four children, could be helped as a result of embryonic stem cell research, how heavily would the intellectual arguments weigh on me when I knew that this research was going to make a quantum difference to the life of my own child.As a parent, I do not think I would hesitate about that. As a parent, I would just say, `Go ahead and help my child.' I am not making an intellectual argument; it is an emotional argument. But I do think that it is a very important perspective that any parent would bring to bear in this debate. Stephen and Elena Voss's letter very much illustrates that point. I have had many other letters like that from constituents.I have also had a great deal of correspondence from constituents and, in the main, from people outside my electorate who are opposed to this. Their arguments against the use of embryonic stem cells are strong ones. The argument is that ultimately an embryo is a human life and that there is something immoral, wrong and almost macabre about using a human life for research purposes. That brings us back to the central moral question, which has been a dilemma in Christian churches for 2,000 years: where does life begin and at what point is a life ensouled? Is there a point of ensoulment? Does ensoulment happen at the point of conception? Is an embryo a living human being? Are we talking here of killing human beings and using them for research purposes? On the face of it, of course, no-one would ever want to do that. For me, the answer to that question is found in the argument that Saint Thomas Aquinas would have made—that is, essentially a human being is not just a body, but a body and a mind. The point where the mind becomes an entity is significant. It becomes a significant factor in the existence of a foetus. That is the point where, for me, human life really begins. This argument is used over and over again in this debate.The proposition that we are not going to allow surplus embryos from the IVF program to be used for embryonic stem cell research but we are going to kill them after a period of time—I think that time varies from state to state—is something that I find difficult to understand. I understand Father John Flemming's point quite clearly. He is opposed to the IVF program, full stop. He is opposed to it for a number of reasons, but one of those reasons is that, to make it work, surplus embryos have to be created to increase the probability of success.I can understand why some people are opposed to the IVF program. Their basic argument is that an embryo is a human being and we cannot freeze a human being for a number of years with the inevitable fate at the end of death, that we should not have a human being that never exists outside a freezer. That is a pretty strong argument. I think that, if you believe an embryo is a human being, it is pretty credible also to argue against the IVF program.I do not argue against it. I do not judge an embryo in that sense to be a human being. I have described my definition, albeit very briefly, of what I understand a human being to be and the point at which humanity really genuinely begins. I am a supporter of the IVF program and I think it has done wonderful things for people. I think there is intellectual consistency in arguing that the surplus embryos—and this, of course, places great time restraints on those surplus embryos that can be used—can be used for research rather than be ultimately just discarded.These are tough moral questions. They boil down at the end of the day to what you fundamentally believe and to your views about the ensoulment and the beginning of life. Like others, I am not a strong supporter of abortion, although I do support abortion in certain circumstances—I am not a blanket opponent of abortion. That brings me to this legislation.I support the legislation. I think it is a compromise. I think I am right in saying—I hope I am not verballing him here—that Professor Grant Sutherland thought there should be blanket approval of embryonic stem cell research and that there should be no limitation on access to embryos. I think this legislation finds a fine compromise between that position and the position of those who are opposed altogether to this kind of embryonic stem cell research.This legislation will help to develop a very positive industry here in Australia. I think it will, on the whole, be built on a strong moral foundation. The industry, the research, will make a great contribution not to human suffering, not to the taking away of human life, but to the advancement of human life, to the preservation of human life and to the alleviation of suffering.12:45:006070Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Yesterday I spoke on the inappropriate referral of this bill to the Main Committee. I will not elaborate on those remarks again today. Today I want to deal with the merits of the legislation, and it is the very substance of the bill that is the reason why we argued so forcefully yesterday that it should have been considered in the main chamber.Firstly, I wish to state that I fully support the prohibition in the bill of human cloning. I consider the notion of such a pseudo-scientific development abhorrent. While I will not resort to some of the extreme language used by a few parliamentary colleagues, I have grave concerns about the idea of the cloning process as a substitute for the normal development of human life. However, I do not believe that the decision on the use for research purposes of surplus stem cells derived from the IVF program is such a black and white issue. There certainly is not the same consensus on the use of surplus embryonic stem cells for medical research purposes, even though the only alternative is to discard the surplus embryos from the IVF program in accordance with existing state law—and it is because of the lack of consensus that we are having a conscience vote on this bill. This is an important ethical and moral issue which properly challenges us all in the parliament and in the broader community to address the various serious questions which are involved in this debate. The technology behind stem cell research is both complex and still emerging. I have done my best to understand the science and to analyse the ethical questions. In the process, my support for stem cell research on surplus IVF embryos has been confirmed. I have an overwhelming respect for the success of modern medicine and believe my recent personal experiences qualify me in some small way to contribute to this debate, albeit as a novice.Recently I was reflecting with my wife that it was about this time last year that a routine blood test picked up the fact that I had cancer. In hindsight, we were very fortunate in that I was able to undertake medical treatment for my condition. At the time, however, I was faced with the horror of not knowing what the prognosis was, of facing my own mortality and of having the whole world of our family turned upside down. Today I am extremely mindful of how, at the beginning of a new century, my life was saved by the huge recent advances in medical knowledge and technology, and this is a theme which comes through time and time again when you talk to people in the community. So many people raise these issues with you. I guess my own health scare of last year has reinforced my recent experiences of talking to so many concerned people in the community about this. I am also mindful that the condition that I had was inherited from my father and, had medical advances been available in his day, he may well have survived. Those were the medical advances that I was personally able to benefit from.When you talk to families with young kids with debilitating conditions and diseases, you can see the passion and the overwhelming desire they have to support further medical research, because so many Australians understand that they or their loved ones could be the beneficiaries of huge increases in medical knowledge and technologies, not just in terms of detection but increasingly in terms of prevention. Early detection worked for me, and that was good, but in the end prevention is always preferable to cure.So, while I have reflected on my own gratitude for medical advancement, I cannot ignore what it will mean for all those other people in our community who desperately desire to benefit from advances in scientific knowledge which are principled and ethically and properly obtained. There has been much talk in the debate about the people who are affected by debilitating conditions such as Parkinson's disease or the young boy with diabetes whom the Minister for Foreign Affairs was talking about before.It is this personal element of the debate that has been reflected in so many of the contributions in the House. Each of us, for whatever reason, has felt an overwhelming need to dig deep into our beliefs and to examine our consciences. That has been done in a commendable way across the board in this debate, and I hope it gives the people of Australia greater faith in our parliament. Because of this dignity and tolerance, this is a debate in which we should always respect each other's values even if we disagree, whether those values are religious or are based elsewhere. I respect the religious views which have been expressed, which are held sincerely and which have been put forward forthrightly and properly in this debate.Many members have raised specific cases of individuals they know. I want to raise just one case that has come to me. A friend of mine has just had her first child after nine attempts of IVF over the past five years. Enough frozen embryos have been developed for that family in the hope that they may have children into the future. These embryos are just a few of the 60,000 frozen embryos we are discussing today. This family is one of the many families who have already had to consider the fate of their embryos as part of the IVF process. When this family initially entered the IVF program they were required to indicate what would happen to the stored embryos should they choose not to continue with the program. They had three choices—to destroy the embryos, to donate them to another couple, or to donate them to research. This family has chosen to donate the embryos to research, primarily research related to assisted reproductive technology, otherwise known as ART. My friends have already made a decision on this issue and have valid reasons for that decision. They want everyone to understand that, of all the groups making decisions about frozen embryos, the parents of the embryos also have a right to make a decision, or at least to have a large say in the ongoing discussion. The letter my friend wrote to me says:I heard a talkback caller on radio ... say that people who undertook IVF have no respect for life. I would like to say to him that I have a greater respect and understanding of human life than he could ever possibly imagine. The journey my husband and I have been on over the last five years has been very long, very painful and very expensive. We thought long and hard over a few weeks about the options given to us when we filled out our form. We have discussed the embryo donation option in the event that we pass away. We certainly don't want our embryos destroyed in vain. We do know that if we could help with AR research or research into helping cure diseases we would be very happy—because we value life so highly and believe everyone has the right to try to have children and a healthy life where possible ...which is what the IVF program is about—the creation of life. The letter goes on:If the circumstances occurred where our embryos were used for research, we would feel they had an important function in the progression of life. This brings us to the core of the argument. Those opposed will argue that the destruction of surplus stem cells is the destruction of life. That is essentially their argument. I respect that argument. This matter has been dealt with elsewhere. The House of Lords in Britain decided early this year that research was reasonable on stem cells less than two weeks old. This is a very important part of this debate because, at this stage, stem cells from embryos, while they are alive in a biological sense, are not a person. They can be divided and still grow again but they do not have a nervous system. The view of the House of Lords committee—and I accept this view—was that at this very early stage embryonic cells do not constitute a human life that needs the protection of the law, although that stage does deserve respect and regulation. That is why I am supporting the provisions of this bill. I respect the views others have which are contrary to that view, but I have thought long and hard about this and I have listened very carefully to the views that have been put to me by many people in the community. This parliament cannot know at this time what future research will bring, what success it will bring and what technique of science will ultimately yield the results that we are looking for in medical advancement. One of the members of the presidential commission from the United States, who has been in this building and is an opponent of this bill, indicated to me that his view was that research on adult stem cells was not superior to research on embryonic stem cells and that the argument really was an argument about what constitutes the beginnings of a human being. I agree with him on that; it is just that we disagree as to when that is. On the balance of all of the evidence and all of the research, I must back that view which I think was most properly and comprehensively put in the report from the House of Lords.It is for all of those reasons that I have made my decision to support this bill. Whatever our personal views, the most important part of this discussion is that everyone has recognised the need to examine their conscience, consider the scientific research and make a thoughtful and perhaps even painful decision. I hope that I have made the best decision. I support the bill.12:57:006072Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—I rise today to join my colleagues in the federal parliament to speak on vitally important legislation for our country, the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. As Australians will be aware, this bill, which is currently before the Australian parliament, is to be determined by a conscience vote of their local members in the House of Representatives and of senators in the upper house.I understand there have been less than half a dozen occasions in the last 40 years when members and senators have had the opportunity to cast their vote on a substantive, socially related bill according to their conscience. Some of the bills where a free vote has been permitted include the Matrimonial Causes Bill 1959, the Death Penalty Abolition Bill 1974, the Sex Discrimination Bill 1984 and, some five years ago, the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1997. As a new member of the federal parliament, I am delighted that within a year of my election to this great democratic chamber I already have the opportunity and the responsibility to cast my vote on this bill according to my conscience. I am especially delighted because in the national political structure that is ours, where the party position is all consuming, a conscience vote can show the very best of our robust parliamentary democracy and the very best of all of us who sit in the national parliament. I take this opportunity to commend the Prime Minister for respecting what are, for many members of this House, deeply held views on the issues that this bill raises. I also commend the Leader of the Opposition for supporting the Prime Minister in permitting a conscience vote by opposition members. As a representative of the people of Ryan it is incumbent upon me to explain to them in this parliament the reasons why I intend to support the Prime Minister on this bill. In the first place, let me state my complete support for the relevant provisions of the bill that seek to legislate a ban on human cloning. Like the Prime Minister, I advocate the position that any attempt to introduce human cloning should be vigorously resisted by every member and senator who sits in this parliament. The bill provides for any form of human cloning to be an offence and provides a 15-year maximum prison sentence. The prison sentence is indicative of the gravity in which the parliament holds the offence of human cloning.In relation to the provisions that will permit research to take place on excessive IVF embryos, like the Prime Minister and many of my Liberal colleagues, I intend to support the bill on the floor of the parliament and, like every member in this House, I have had to make a personal decision on how I might vote on this contentious bill. I understand that for many members of this parliament the decision has been an exceptionally difficult and challenging one. To these colleagues, you have my complete regard and respect.As I have examined and studied all the issues that touch and concern this bill, to my mind, what makes this bill so fundamentally contentious, both here in the parliament and in our communities throughout the length and breadth of our country, is the question of where human life begins. At what point is human life formed or defined? To me, that seems to be the central, inescapable and ubiquitous question. As my friend and colleague the member for Casey aptly put it: At what point does a cell become more than simply a living cell or a collection of cells? At what point does it become an entity in its own right—a human life to be protected by the community? I think those words by the member for Casey very aptly sum up the central point in this debate. Thus, as I see it, the entire debate rests on that very theme of how to approach ethical or moral questions that relate to the very essence of human life.For those in the parliament and in the broader community who believe that life begins at fertilisation, I understand that you cannot bring yourselves to act in a manner contrary to the values you cherish and which define your outlook on life itself. I understand your position in opposing this bill, because it is based on the belief that destroying an embryo is akin to destroying life itself. To those of my colleagues here in the parliament and to my constituents in Ryan who also hold this view let me say again very sincerely that I respect very much your deeply held views.For my part, however, I can only say that I respectfully disagree with your views and your position. I disagree with you because my own faith, as I define it, and my own conscience, as only I can know it, tells me that human life does not begin at fertilisation, but rather when the embryo has advanced into the more distinct and discernible character of a human foetus as we know it. I accept that some of my colleagues do not share this view. I accept that some of my friends do not share this view. I also accept that some members within the broader ranks of my own Liberal Party do not share this view. In particular, I accept that many of the residents within my electorate of Ryan will not share this view. I accept this and only ask that the residents of Ryan who happen to disagree with me equally respect my view and my values. In the nature of our wonderful and vibrant democracy, this is what makes Australia both a special and, indeed, a great nation. I am confident that the people of Ryan, irrespective of their religious stance, moral outlook or political persuasion are the kinds of Australians that truly value our system of government and our democracy.In the context of this bill, what is being proposed is that a very small number of some excess 50,000 embryos, formed by in-vitro fertilisation, be used to derive embryonic stem cell lines for basic research in cell biology. The important question, therefore, is: what is to happen to these excess embyros? The current position in relation to excess IVF embryos is that, after a specified period of time in storage, the law actually compels their destruction. This occurs in a very unceremonious and unglamorous manner in that the excess IVF embryos are simply exposed to room temperature. Therefore, once such exposure takes place, the embryos are destroyed. I stress that this is compelled by law. In this context, I wish to quote the words of the Prime Minister, which I think very eloquently and very succinctly capture the spirit and substance of my support for the bill. Introducing the bill to the parliament on 27 June 2002, the Prime Minister said: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.Much has been made of the fact that adult stem cells are already available for research and it is said that, therefore, our focus should be confined to this field. Those who advocate this position say that this would eliminate all the moral and ethical complexities surrounding the debate. That may well be the case for those who oppose this bill. However, while great strides have been made in the work with adult stem cells, the fact that embryonic stem cells have a completely different character about them which makes them especially attractive to researchers surely adds weight to the case for their use.At the risk of straying into scientific language, the overwhelming advantage of embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells is that the former have an extra plasticity that enables them to be manipulated into tissue tailor-made for use anywhere in the human body. Heart attack and burn victims, for example, cannot regenerate their damaged tissues. That these new cells may now be guided to act as replacement for damaged tissue is the great and exciting advantage of embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells. In my opinion, on this assessment there appears to be no scientific or medical case for why research cannot equally take place on embryonic stem cells as on adult stem cells. This is also the approach of many of those who are working on adult stem cell research. Their plea is not to tie their hands by limiting research to adult stem cells only. Therefore, in light of this position I am at peace with my decision to support the bill for the express purposes of research that may advance the cause of alleviating unimaginable human suffering.I have noted that some speakers against the bill have made claims that the experts have falsely held out assurances of immediate medical breakthroughs in the terrible illnesses and diseases that exist. I am certainly not under the impression that the most respected professionals or experts in the field of embryonic stem cell research have made such claims, which will lead to a Pandora's box of miracle cures for all the terrible diseases known to mankind. It appears to me that what they are saying is that, in the handful of years that research on embryonic stem cells has been done, all the signs point to tremendous potential for greater strides to be made in the years and decades ahead. Professor Elizabeth Blackburn, the 1998 recipient of the prestigious Australia Prize, who now serves on US President George W. Bush's Council on Bioethics, writing in the Australian on 12 August 2002, makes this point admirably: This research holds great promise of medical help for millions of afflicted people. As long as human embryonic stem cell research is held up, millions of people will continue to live under the Damocles' sword of presently incurable diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's as well as spinal injuries and may well die untimely deaths. Research involving embryonic stem cells offers the first real hope for alleviating those injuries and diseases. I think the key word there is `hope'. Of course, much more remains to be done, but this is the very nature of medical and scientific research. A critical argument in favour of this bill is the argument that this bill provides hope to so many of our fellow human beings who are victims of awful diseases or injuries. We all know of someone who is afflicted with some terrible disease or illness, whether they are family members, members of the community or friends. We all know, personally or indirectly, of someone who suffers from diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's or awful spinal cord injuries. Hope is no less oxygen for mankind's survival than the air we must breathe, the water we must drink or the food we must eat. We all know that hope sustains the human spirit. The Bible, in Corinthians I, talks about hope, together with faith and love, being one of the three things that lasts forever. Hope, like love, is all-powerful in this remarkable world that we all call home. That is what this bill is all about; it is about hope. So let us give hope to people who need it and, indeed, who deserve it.In making my decision on this bill, I found myself thinking deeply about my own position and role as a member of the Australian parliament. It is a great privilege to be the federal member for Ryan and every day the honour of being in this place never escapes me. The theme that always comes to the forefront of my mind is that I am here to use all the talents and skills I may have to try to do good things for my community, my constituency and my country. On that measure I can only conclude that it is not only my responsibility but my duty to support the bill. I do so because, as I understand all the issues surrounding the bill, good can come from the bill being passed and from research on embryonic stem cells being permitted to take place. For my part, the central theme running through my conscience is what is good for my country. On this yardstick, and on the balance of all the issues that make this bill so contentious, I arrive at the view that it is absolutely and certainly in the interests of the people of Australia that their parliament passes this bill. My vote, I hope, will contribute to that outcome. The view I have taken also sits very comfortably with my own progressively oriented liberal politics. My politics are that of progressive liberalism, a political and philosophical outlook which does not blindly lock us into old ways or the past merely for their own sake but which encourages us to hold and fight for the values and traditions that the passing of time has irrefutably proved to be beneficial for our civil society.Human history is littered with examples of nation states failing to take up opportunities that would otherwise have them or their citizens better placed with the passing of time. Our nation must not pass up this opportunity that might just make a difference to the future lives of many people the world over. Therefore, my decision to support the bill rests more on my personal and genuine optimism for the capacity of science and the wonders of medicine than it does on when human life itself is formed.That I have a brother, Dr David Johnson, who is one of this country's exceptionally gifted young neurosurgeons of course places me in a fortunate position. With his talents in medicine and his dedication to the cause of alleviating human suffering and saving lives I have a ready source of advice and, indeed, wisdom. Speaking of the talents and skills of my younger brother who as a young doctor has a love for his work, I say to my fellow Australians and indeed all members of this House that we should always go out of our way to honour the genius of our researchers and our scientists. For a country of our relatively small population size of less than 20 million and for a country that has only recently celebrated its centenary of Federation we can hold our heads high when it comes to medical and scientific researchers.Some of the biggest names in international medical and scientific research are Australians. Amongst these are the likes of Sir Howard Florey, a pathologist in training and 1945 winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine, who established that penicillin, with its extremely low toxicity, could attack previously troublesome bacteria; Sir John Eccles, winner of the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine, who had a brilliant career in brain research for over four decades; and Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet, the 1960 winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his thesis that self-tolerance by the body of its own proteins is not inherited but actually develops at foetal stage. Another who continues the tradition of Australians winning Nobel prizes in medicine is Professor Peter Doherty, who received that honour in 1996. Another brilliant Australian is Professor Frank Fenner, who only last week was awarded the 2002 Prime Minister's science prize. Professor Fenner, a virologist, is world renowned for leading the global fight to eradicate smallpox. These are all remarkable Australians that all of us in this country should be most proud of. In conclusion, given the nature of the bill and the manner in which it is being presented to the parliament, I invite and encourage all of us privileged to be here to respect the position and views of our colleagues. On such a bill there is absolutely no place for any one of us to diminish the personal opinions or judgments of anyone else. We should be mature enough in our character and capacity to advocate our own views honestly but also humbly. This is not incompatible with completely respecting the views and values of our colleagues. Indeed, such a bill as this really ought to unite us, not through voting patterns but rather in leadership and in spirit as the national legislators of our wonderful country. This bill can do this, I feel, because it crosses party lines and because it is a deeply personal matter for members present. Opinions on embryonic stem cells, like euthanasia, transcend party political, religious or ideological divides. The bill should unite us as a demonstration to the people of Australia that we, as their representatives in this great parliament, have the personal qualities that make us fit and proper to sit in their parliament—their House; their House of Representatives—and that we can indeed speak from the heart. I commend the bill to the House.Sitting suspended from 1.15 p.m. to 4.00 p.m.16:00:006076Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Some find this debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 a straightforward one. I am not one of them. I am not one of them because it raises the most fundamental questions of ethics and of science, questions for which the answers are, at this stage, neither neat nor complete. It is entirely proper, therefore, that this be the subject of a conscience vote, and I commend my fellow members from all parties for the manner in which this parliamentary debate has, in the main, been conducted. With few exceptions, the debate has been characterised by much mutual respect—mutual respect borne of a realisation that we are dealing, in large part, with the unknown.Whether we are conscious of it or not, we are all guided by ethics. It was Immanuel Kant, the father of modern Western philosophy, who argued that there were only two things of which he was certain: the starry heavens above and the moral law within. Ethics and morality are not the exclusive preserve of the Christian church, although I say here, and without apology, that I am one of its adherents. We are all required to make daily judgments of what is right and what is wrong. The question at stake for us all is what criteria, conscious or otherwise, we employ in making these judgments. For me, there are several: the equal worth of all humanity; the protection of the weak from the strong; the minimisation of suffering if suffering itself cannot be eliminated; the contribution to the social good, not just the individual good; and, above all, and in all these things, a commitment to the truth, however uncomfortable the truth may from time to time be. For those who seek a moral exemplar in me—one who applies these ethical principles consistently and to the totality of their lives—they will be sorely disappointed. Then again, if ethical perfection were the criterion for participating in this debate the chamber would be empty as none of us would be entitled to speak.I find it puzzling, therefore, when some question the credentials of the church to participate in the public debate beyond this parliament on the matter before us in this bill. The church is guilty of monstrous inaction on the question of child sexual abuse and is to be condemned for it; but, then again, I come from a political party which, to our shame, had in its ranks a parliamentary member guilty of child sexual abuse, now imprisoned for that abuse. Generic moral denunciations of one institution by another serve no useful purpose. Not only does it run the risk of hypocrisy, it fails the test of distinguishing the good from the bad irrespective of what institution they may come from. As a secular politician, my message today is that there is much good which the Christian church has delivered to our society. Where would we be without St Vincent de Paul? Where would we be without Anglicare? Where would we be without UnitingCare and Baptist Care? Are these institutions, and the Christian churches that have given them life and continue to be their inspiration, to be denied an opportunity to express a valid position on this bill? In my view, they are more entitled than most, notwithstanding their failings, particularly when held up against the light of the selfish business that often makes up the stuff of politics.I have a view that the Christian church in its relationship with the state is one which comes from the long tradition of Thomas à Becket, Thomas More, William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and even our own Henry Bergmann. That relationship is one in which the function of the church is to maximise the moral discomfort of the state, whatever the political complexion of the state at any time.In Western history, the state has often been at its worst when it has had serving it a compliant church. By contrast, when the Christian church has acted as a creative, constant and conscience based thorn in the side for the state on questions of civil liberties, on social justice as well as on some of the fundamental questions of life and death, then the behaviour of the state is tempered. That is not to say that the church will always get it right. They, like the rest of us, are mortal. Furthermore, they, like many other institutions and individuals, are part of a secular, pluralist political tradition in which they legitimately compete in this country in the great battle for ideals and ideas. They are one voice, an important voice, which in my view should be heard with respect rather than with contempt, even if ultimately you may disagree. The church has also played a large role in the history of the Labor Party, the labour movement and the long tradition of social justice that precedes them. John Wesley, the father of Methodism, preached his gospel on the one hand and established dispensaries for the sick, mutual benefit societies to help workers, schools and orphanages for the children of industrial workers at the same time.The Tolpuddle Martyrs, all Methodist farm workers, were important in the evolution of trade unionism in Britain and latterly here. William Wilberforce was an evangelical but also a pioneer of the Slavery Abolition Committee as well as his campaign against Yorkshire slavery and the repeal of the factory acts. Lord Shaftesbury, an Anglican, a pioneer in the abolition of child labour, said:I maintain that God is worshipped, not only by the spiritual, but by the material creation. Our bodies ... ought not to be corrupted by preventible disease, degraded by avoidable filth, and disabled for this service by unnecessary suffering.William Booth, a Salvationist, established in the 19th century credit unions for the poor, organised legal aid for the poor and an employment agency for the unemployed—all exercises in social capital 150 years before the term ever became fashionable. Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, was the first described in the literature as a Christian socialist. In 1891, Archbishop Manning, a Catholic, a source of Pope Leo XIII encyclical rerum novarum, outlined for the first time in formal Catholic teaching the rights of organised labour. In 1906 there was the Church Socialist League. Bishop Gore of Birmingham preached in a sermon in relation to the beatitudes:Bad dwellings, inadequate wages, inadequate education these are the stones which lie on the graves of the spiritually dead and we must remove these stones.Finally, my own hero, Keir Hardie, one of the founders of the British Labour Party, was an evangelical convert from a crusade by Dwight Moody, the Billy Graham of his time, and embarked upon the development of the modern British Labour Party. For him the gospel was both personal and social and, if it was social, it was therefore political.My purpose in placing all this on the parliamentary record is to establish that when it comes to who has credentials to speak on the ethical questions of our time it is impossible to argue, in my view, that the church for all its failings should suffer some form of automatic disqualification, as some have argued in this debate.A second and unfortunate failure in this debate has been those who have proclaimed a Christian triumphalism of one side of Australian politics over the other. The Leader of the House, for example, referred to this in part as the `Catholicisation of the Liberal Party'. I would like to say a few things about that. Those who invoke Christianity or Catholicism, as I do not, in the defence of their ethical position on the bill before the House need to be mindful of the fact that there is a danger in cherry picking one's Christian ethics. Confining Christian ethics to a narrow range, to narrow casting a set of policy questions that deal exclusively with sex, sexuality and/or the ethics of various reproductive technologies is in fact a very narrow tradition indeed. It does not recognise that the ethics of the Christian tradition recognises no such neat restrictions. The Christian ethical tradition is as demanding on questions of social equity as it is on questions of personal and interpersonal behaviour.All this came to a head recently in a remarkable answer to a question in the House of Representatives by the Leader of the House, Mr Abbott, following his revelation that his inspiration for his position on this bill was drawn both from Cardinal Newman in the broad and from modern Catholic social teaching in the narrow. When the Leader of the House was asked if on that basis he also accepted Catholic social teaching on the rights of trade unions, and in particular His Holiness's observations on the particular virtues of the Australian system of conciliation and arbitration, Mr Abbott declined. In his defence the Leader of the House said yes to the Pope on questions of a religious nature but no to the Pope on questions of a political nature. In other words, questions of sex, sexuality and the ethics that apply to various forms of reproductive technologies would, in the definition of the Leader of the House, constitute religious questions, but exploitation, poverty and injustice somehow escape the religious definition. I see no such convenient distinction either in the New Testament or in Cardinal Newman's apologia.I had a conversation with the Leader of the House not long ago at a conference I attended both with him and with the Treasurer, who is with us in the chamber at the moment, which dealt with the question of stem cells and, surprisingly, asylum seekers. Mr Abbott—and I will refer to him as Tony for the purposes of this debate—said to me, `Brother, I hear you're going soft on stem cells,' to which I said, `Brother, I heard that you've never been soft on asylum seekers.' He said, `Well, you need to harden up; we need you on this one.' My response was, `I'll do you a deal: I'll harden up on stem cells if you come with us on asylum seekers; both are equal questions of applied Christian ethics and one is not somehow exclusive of the other.' The Christian ethical tradition is not to be the subject of politically expedient cherry picking, as certain people in this debate and beyond it seem to have demonstrated. Turning to the immediacy of the bill, as I said at the outset, I find this bill a very difficult exercise personally. I find it difficult in terms of the ethical judgments that must be made in relation to it and I find it difficult in relation to the questions of science and the promises of science associated with it. On the matter of ethics, I referred earlier to the guiding principles that I seek to apply to my conscience in the deliberations on the bill. These are principles that embrace the equal worth of all humanity, the protection of the weak from the strong, the minimisation of suffering, if suffering itself cannot be eliminated, and the contribution to the social good, not just the individual good, and in all things truth—something which certain researchers could have given their minds to in recent days.On the question of surplus embryos, my judgment is this: one form of death to surplus embryos is no more humane than another. Succumbing of an exposed embryo is no more or less humane than the use of those embryos for research. If we were to oppose the human destruction of surplus embryos, it would mean, by definition, the destruction of the IVF program, something which I could not in conscience support. For this reason, I see no fundamental reason to oppose this bill, because the research may offer potential relief to human suffering. In this question we are all subject to our own individual human circumstances. My mother suffers from Parkinson's disease and has done so for some years. Six years down the road, she is in good spirits and in quite good health still. My mum is also a very good Catholic. I spoke to her at some length about all this the other night, and when I asked for her view, ultimately, she said in the great tradition of the church, `Kevin, that's a matter for your conscience, not mine.' But we are all shaped by these experiences, and while she is in good nick now I am not quite so certain how long that will hold up. When you look at people like that and the 40,000 to 60,000 Parkinson's sufferers across Australia and ask yourself, `Does this research offer some potential for the relief of human suffering?' it becomes a matter which influences your judgment.When I say I support the legislation, I do so with little enthusiasm. I am probably this bill's least enthusiastic supporter. My lack of enthusiasm comes from two sets of reasons. The first is that I am, in part, persuaded by the argument of what is described as the hazards of the slippery slope—in other words, the profound question, where does all this stop; where does it all end; where does it all go to? Will it result in new commercially driven drivers for the further production of surplus embryos? Commercial considerations in all of this will be real. Beyond the excessive production of surplus embryos, are there other unintended consequences of the legislation we have before us? I would say with absolute clarity today that, if there is any evidence of this occurring—that is, the commercially driven production of surplus embryos—or of any of the other reported possible unintended consequences of this legislation, I will be leading the charge within my party to have this bill revisited.I said there were two reasons why I lack enthusiasm in my support for the bill. The second relates to the tawdry events of the last 24 hours and the overclaims of science. If I have the facts before me correctly, Dr Trounson has misstated the position. He has overclaimed the potential achievements of research in this field. If that is so—and I have seen nothing to the contrary so far—he is to be condemned for it. As the Prime Minister rightly said in the debate today in the House of Representatives, there is nothing more cruel than elevating people's hopes and expectations falsely. There is a grave danger that we overestimate in this debate the potential dividends to be delivered by the science and the technologies which will be derivative of the science in this field.So I conclude where I began. This is a question of applied ethics. It is a question to which I have sought to apply a range of ethical considerations which are not necessarily derivative of the Christian tradition from which I come. The conclusion that I have reached in conscience on the question of the bill before us has been a product of considerable anxiety and considerable difficulty on my part. When newspapers have rung me up, including this morning, about what my own position would be on this legislation, I have said that, as of this morning, I would still be undecided. Dr Trounson's activities in the last 24 hours nearly pushed me back to the other side of the path. I therefore record for the Hansard the fact that I support the bill. I do so with the most profound reservations.16:19:006080Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 has essentially two aspects to it. The first is to prohibit cloning and to make certain offences in relation to cloning and crossing animal and human genetic matter. As far as I am aware, there is general agreement that those practices ought to be banned. I have not heard anybody in the debate suggest that that aspect of the bill is wrong or that they would be voting against those parts of the bill that put in place, in my view, very important prohibitions. I think it is important that that form the subject of national legislation. I think it is important that we have a uniform framework throughout Australia in relation to this issue generally. If this were a matter which was left to the states, I fear we would have a race to the bottom, with one state proving more lax and attracting various activities, and maybe that would force other states to follow suit. I welcome the fact that, through this issue being raised with the federal government and through the COAG, we now have the opportunity to put in place a national framework, which all of us agree, to a very large aspect, should be done. As far as I am aware there is no dissent.The part of the bill which is contentious, of course, is the part which allows for the use of embryonic stem cells. The bill sets up in divisions 3 and 4 and following divisions a licensing system which would allow the use of embryonic stem cells from excess ART embryos—that is, embryos created by assisted reproductive technology—and embryos which are no longer required for the purpose of those for whom they were created. I want to be very clear in my discussion of this particular bill that we are talking about quite a precise and quite a narrow area: an embryo created by assisted reproductive technology for those who no longer require it for IVF or reproductive purposes.In the course of this debate, to my knowledge, there has been no objection to the use of adult stem cells. This involves adult stem cells being taken from a person by consent, which involves removing tissue, but obviously without affecting the life or the health of the donor. The difference in relation to embryonic stem cells, which can only be taken under this bill by consent—it is not the consent issue, because consent is required before any use in experimentation can be made—is that the taking of those cells would involve either damage to or destruction of the embryo concerned. This is what is said to put them in a different category to the use of adult stem cells.If one were to approach this issue on purely scientific terms, one would say, `Why close off an avenue of medical research before it has been fully explored?' Some have argued that we do not need embryonic stem cell research because adult stem cell research will be sufficient or will be superior because you will not have rejection problems. Even if that were true—that it was superior—on scientific grounds I could not understand why you would close off this area of inquiry before it had been fully explored. There are some, indeed, who argue that embryonic stem cells will be a much more effective way of treating conditions of suffering because the cells are pluripotent.The real argument therefore is not a scientific argument. The real argument of course is that this area of experimentation or research should be closed off, not for scientific reasons but for fundamentally moral reasons. This is how the case has been argued, and this is how I will argue it. I consider this profoundly a moral question and, as many speakers have said in the course of this debate, each of us within our own moral understanding and sense of ethics has to answer it.It is said that an embryo is a human life and that there is a difference between intentionally killing it and allowing it to die. Opponents of the bill argue that allowing it to die is morally permissible whereas doing an intentional act of experimentation is morally impermissible. It is said that letting an excess embryo succumb is quite different to taking a stem cell from an excess embryo. I must confess that I have found this distinction quite unsatisfactory. From the time this matter was first discussed in the cabinet I had difficulty with the distinction.An embryo is alive because it is frozen. We are told that there are something like 70,000 embryos which have been created for ART and are now no longer required. We are also told that between 3,000 and 5,000 embryos per year are taken out of the frozen state. The person who takes the embryo out of the frozen state knows there will be only one result. There are no embryos which have been taken out of storage that have ever become people or ever could become people. The motive of the person taking the embryo out of the frozen state might be a good one but their intention can only be one thing—that is, the ending of the capacity of that embryo to ever become a fully-fledged human being. As I said, their motive may be thoroughly defensible but their intention, in my view, can only be one thing.If I were to accept that an embryo should be treated in all circumstances as a human life and that it would be wrong under any circumstances to do an intentional act which would end it, I would oppose the taking of any embryo out of the frozen state. People say, `What else could be done?' The embryos could be implanted in willing mothers or even held in storage indefinitely. But that is in fact not what happens. Each year 3,000 to 5,000 of those embryos are going to be destroyed by an intentional act. We are told that some 50 to 60 per cent of the couples for whom the embryos were created would like to donate them for medical research. I must say that when I came to think about all of this I had severe moral qualms about how all these excess embryos came to be in the first place and about how they were being dealt with. I myself would feel much happier if excess embryos were not created at all, if the advances in science become sufficient as to only create those embryos which will be needed and will be used for assisted reproduction. But, that being the situation, I felt that the critical question is whether it is possible for some good to come out of a situation which I find very difficult. I have come to the conclusion that it is ethically defensible to try to bring some good from these facts as they have arisen.I believe that the churches have every right in the world to comment on this debate, and I respect them for it. The Roman Catholic Church position has always been that life is sacred and should not be destroyed, nor should the creation of life be interfered with. That has led to its opposition to artificial contraception. That is a consistent position. It is not one I agree with, but it is a consistent position. My view is that life is sacred, each individual is unique and that from the moment of conception embryos have the potential to become individuals and people—from fertilisation to implantation to quickening to birth to ultimate independence—and should be treated with respect at all points. But I keep coming back to the situation where we now have embryos created for people who wish to consent to medical research as an alternative to what will be intentional and inevitable destruction.Some of my colleagues who have lobbied me on this issue have said, `If you let this go you'll compromise your ability to call a halt to such experimentation in future circumstances; you'll be in a worse position and more compromised down the track.' I do not feel that is the case. I feel—and I had some involvement in bringing this about—that this bill does draw a line. The line that it draws, for better or for worse, is 5 April 2002. In order to experiment, one needs a licence from the licensing committee of the NHMRC and a licence can be issued only if that committee is satisfied that this is an excess ART embryo. There are appropriate protocols in place to enable compliance with the condition that the use is authorised only in respect of an embryo created before 5 April 2002. In proposed section 39(3) it says ... the licence is subject to the condition that such use is authorised only in respect of an embryo created before 5 April 2002.What that says is that you cannot create an embryo for the purposes of experimentation. No future embryos can ever be the subject of a licence but an embryo in existence, with the consent of the parents, that is excess prior to 5 April 2002—on tightly controlled conditions—which inevitably and intentionally would be damaged or destroyed in the alternative can be the subject of some licensed use in medical research which could ease suffering or prolong other lives.Apparently the number of stem cells which are required for this purpose is quite small. It is said that stem cells from embryos can be propagated indefinitely. It has been estimated that the only reason why one would need a number of stem cell lines is to ensure that there is a variety of genetic backgrounds. The only experimentation which can be allowed is in respect of those which have already been created and were created for the purpose of assisted reproduction—in particular, those created before 5 April 2002.I think there have been overblown claims on both sides of this debate. It has been claimed on one side that people who oppose this bill are heartless to the sick and suffering. I reject that. I think people who oppose this bill, those whom I have spoken to, are doing it for the deepest and most conscientious of reasons. On the other side, it is said that people who support this bill are being callous about human life. Again, I reject that. I think people who are supporting this bill—on many sides—are doing it after wrestling with the ethical issues involved and care very deeply about human life.I voted against euthanasia in this parliament on the grounds of a deep respect that I have for human life. I approach all of these questions from that starting point. So I am not particularly influenced in this debate by who has made the more outrageous claims. I do not think that resolves it one way or the other for me. I am not motivated at all by the commercial argument that says we should do this because we can make money out of it. I would have no hesitation whatsoever in banning this experimentation, whatever the economic cost, if I thought that morally it were necessary to do so. I am not motivated at all by the argument that we need to do this because some of our scientists might go overseas if we do not. I would have no hesitation in ending this if I thought it were morally required. I am not even motivated by the argument that, if we do not allow this experimentation, someone else will and it will happen in any event. I do not see why that should move us to do something that we really thought was wrong. I am motivated solely by the ethical considerations that we are now confronted with. We are now confronted with embryos who were created for people who no longer need or want or are able to have them as children and who wish to donate for the purposes of medical research something which has the potential to alleviate other people's ills and, if it is not done, will by intentional act otherwise be destroyed. Of that we can be certain. In those circumstances, with a tightly controlled licensing system, with a line in the sand providing that no embryo since notice of this decision was given on 5 April 2002 can be created for the purposes of medical research, I would say some good can come out of this situation. I would do it whilst underscoring the point that I hope our medical science is developed and will develop to a situation where not even one embryo that could not reasonably be required would be created in the future if our science is able to develop to that stage, and so scientists will not be tempted in the future in taking this step forward. I appreciate the argument, as I have said, that one can get on a slippery slope. To some degree, we have entered it. But I feel that, by passing this bill and by drawing that line on 5 April, some good can come out of this situation. Within my own beliefs, which I at least hold to be consistent with the Christian faith as I understand it, I can see that this bill will make a contribution to public life. 16:39:006083Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—It is my intention in this debate to outline my thinking on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 so that my constituents can understand why I cast my vote as I do when we finally have the vote. I had not expected to speak after the Treasurer. Perhaps we bring some of the same ethical framework to bear on these questions, having both been brought up Baptists, but perhaps in our own different ways we have moved on. I will start with the question of the conscience vote. Obviously this debate has enlivened a lot of media interest because it is unusual in this parliament to have a conscience vote. I support my party's decision to give people a conscience vote and I support the arrangements that have been made in other political parties to do so, but I have felt vaguely uncomfortable with some of the media reporting and the way in which conscience votes are construed in the public debate—and I will say something about that first. The line has almost been drawn in some of the media reporting that, as we go about the rest of our business in this parliament, voting on bills which might be to do with education or health or industrial relations, or making decisions perhaps about what role Australian troops should play in an engagement overseas—with Iraq having been debated back and forth of late—somehow we are not being guided by moral and ethical frameworks, that we are not being guided by our conscience. When we make the full suite of decisions in this place, we are guided by our ethical framework and by our conscience. I have not at any time been required by party discipline to vote in a way that I have found did not accord with my conscience. We really do need to say that to dispel the media spin that most of the time we are robots exercising votes and that there are very few occasions when we get our conscience out of the cupboard, scrub it down and use it to define our position in relation to a bill. We use our conscience, our moral and ethical framework, all the time. Of course, in the Labor Party we have a level of discipline. Having that level of discipline accords with my moral and ethical framework, because I believe the core of the Labor philosophy is that we are immeasurably strengthened by being members of a team. The Labor philosophy and party discipline is based on that concept of teamwork. The fact that the political parties generally act together is a good thing in our democratic system. It gives people who vote a degree of assurance and predictability about the causes and issues that their elected members are going to support when they get here. I believe that we rely generally on our moral and ethical framework, and we are doing it again in this debate but perhaps in more special circumstances than with other pieces of legislation. A collateral question has emerged, particularly in the last few days, about the nature and legitimacy of voices in this debate. One of the strengths of a vibrant democracy is that many voices should play out in all sorts of debates. I believe that churches have a legitimate role to play in a debate like this. They have a legitimate role to play in debates about social welfare, about gambling, about refugee matters, about a whole series of things. I think they do have a legitimate voice. I think humanists have a legitimate voice in a debate like this. I think feminists do. I think scientists do. I think ethicists do. It is through the interplay and clash of those voices—sometimes very heated, sometimes in accord—that people can form and develop their views. I do not believe anybody's voice is illegitimate; I think we need a circumstance where all voices are heard. However, I would note that, as the various forces in this debate have their voices heard in the public domain, there is a requirement on all of them to speak the truth. To the extent that there has been some doubt over the past few days that a voice in this debate has been less than forthright, I think that is unhelpful. We all have an obligation when we engage in general debate, in civil discourse, in the way in which we treat each other in all of the facets of human nature, to be truthful. When dealing with issues like this, that obligation is at its highest point. As the participants in the public debate have continued, it has become a question for us to listen to those various voices. I have certainly read many of the press reports and many of the papers, and I have listened to the voices in my constituency. But it comes down, at the end of the day, to making a decision for yourself, having been informed by the interplay of those voices. One thing that always presents itself in a debate which deals with embryos and the matter of human reproduction is a philosophical divide in our community about when, on the basis of their ethical framework, people believe life commences. We are all aware that the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, for example—and of course it is not only the Catholic Church; many others in our society take this position—maintains that life begins at conception. Obviously there are others in our society who hold a different view and would say that post conception an embryo is a potential for life but not a life itself. I am in the latter school.Having said that, I do not think that is what determines my position in this debate or, indeed, the position of many others. It is more complex than that, because of the way in which our society deals with assisted reproductive technology—what in common parlance we all refer to as IVF, although there are of course more reproductive technologies than IVF itself. I believe that our society has entered a stage where there is general community support for people who wish to become parents but cannot do so through natural methods to have access to the relevant reproductive technology to enable them to become parents. Obviously in the last few years there have been some collateral debates about who should get access to that technology—I do not intend to deal with those matters today—but I believe there is a general community view that people should get access to that technology.If we support that general community sentiment, an inevitable result of the process is that there will be surplus embryos—and there are surplus embryos. We know that, even as we sit here today, many of those embryos are in storage, and in the days in which we have had this debate many of them will have been disposed of because they were surplus to requirements. It is an inevitable part of the reproductive technology process that embryos will be created which will never be implanted in a woman's body—will never be used in that way to try to create a healthy baby. We also know that, even of those embryos that are implanted in a woman's body, many fail to result in a healthy baby. Obviously some do, but there is still a substantial failure rate. An inevitable consequence of this technology is that we have surplus embryos. If we accept that our society should give people access to this kind of technology and accept that this technology will inevitably leave us with surplus embryos, it seems to me that the decision becomes one about what you do with those surplus embryos.In this debate some people have put the view, because they passionately believe that life begins at conception, that each and every one of these embryos is a life. For example, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in his contribution said that each one is `a life which, with appropriate food and shelter, would become a human being just like you or me'. I do not follow that line of argument. We know when we embark on this technology that there will be embryos that will never be implanted and will never be in circumstances to become a healthy human baby—to become a life like you and me. Inevitably, we know that many thousands of these embryos are going to be destroyed. I do not think it is a consistent ethical position to say that you believe fundamentally that these embryos are human lives, because you believe fundamentally that life begins at conception, but to sanction a regime which leads to the creation of many such `lives'—in your ethical construct—knowing that they will inevitably be destroyed.I can understand why people put that position. I do not share it, but I can understand why people do. I respect their views and trust that they would have respect for mine. For people who put that view, really, the inevitable logical consequence is to say that our society ought not to use reproductive technology—at least not in circumstances where an inevitable by-product of it is unwanted or surplus embryos. For those people there might be a day when that technology has moved on so that you get a 100 per cent success rate and there is no creation of surplus embryos. Then people who hold that moral and ethical position could put the view—and be consistent—that they support the proposition that life begins at conception and they support reproductive technology. But we are not at that point yet.With the availability in our society of the reproductive technology that I support—and I believe it to be generally supported—we are in a circumstance where we know that there will be surplus embryos. The only issue we are really deciding here is whether those surplus embryos should simply be destroyed or whether there should be an ability to use those surplus embryos for research prior to destruction. When you put the question as sharply as that—and in this debate we have to be very clear on our reasoning—I am in the camp that says we should enable these embryos to be used for research purposes. I, like the Treasurer, am not persuaded that there is some moral distinction between allowing an embryo to succumb and engaging in a research act. I do not think that is an operative moral distinction. Once again, if one were fundamentally of the view that life began at conception and that these were lives—in the same way that we in this room are lives—then I would find it a little odd that one would reason one's way to the position that it was all right to create such life solely for the purposes of destroying it. My view, in respect of embryos that have been created and are genuinely surplus in terms of reproductive technology, is that if the choice is between destroying those embryos or allowing them to be used for research before destruction, I would put my hand up for allowing the research to occur. The argument has been put in this debate—I have heard it in the House; it was, for example, put by the Deputy Prime Minister and has been fulsomely canvassed in the media—that we do not need to conduct research on embryos because adult stem cell research will provide every advantage that such embryonic research might be able to provide. While I am not a scientist, and I suspect many of us called on to engage in this debate are not scientists—to my certain knowledge many of us are not scientists—we need to form a view about that. The only view I can form is that it seems to me consistent for researchers to say that at the moment they do not know what they do not know. It might be that, when they have engaged in embryonic stem cell research, they find that it accords with their wildest dreams in terms of potential. Or they might find that it is not anywhere near as efficacious for the resolving of disease and disability matters as they would have hoped. I do not know where we are going to get to, because I am not a scientist. I do not think anybody presently could tell us that even if they were a scientist—but it seems to me that, if there is the potential for this research to resolve in great good, you must allow that to happen.Given the inevitable destruction of these embryos I am in favour of permitting the research. I am in favour of permitting the research even in circumstances where, when that research is ultimately done, not all of the dreams come true. But we cannot know that and we will not know that without allowing the research to be conducted. I think this bill has it right in terms of the protection mechanisms. We do need a national scheme, and what this parliament will really achieve with the passage of this bill is a national arrangement.I generally support what the Treasurer said—that is, that the economic arguments and the arguments about researchers going offshore and the like would not persuade one if one came to the view that this was a moral wrong. But, having come to my view, I see that there is benefit in the fact that this research can be conducted in Australia under a regime established by this federal parliament and in circumstances where we can monitor it. I believe we will achieve this through this bill.Finally, the other aspect of this bill is the prohibition on human cloning, which I support. I understand it to be universally supported in this parliament. It is very important that we, as a parliament, make a statement about that through the passage of this bill—and I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity.16:56:006086Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNP10—I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I will firstly outline what this bill seeks to do, because there has been some debate that has been rather narrowly focused on certain aspects of it. I would like to read into the Hansard once again from this bill's explanatory memorandum what this legislation seeks to do:This Bill forms part of a national regulatory system to address concerns, including ethical concerns, about scientific developments in relation to human reproduction and the utilisation of human embryos. This is to be achieved through a regulatory framework which:(a) prohibits certain practices associated with reproductive technologies, including the cloning of a human being; and(b) regulates activities that involve the use of certain human embryos created by assisted reproductive technology.Consistent with its object, the Bill:(a) prohibits the creation, importation, exportation or implantation of a human embryo clone;(b) prohibits the creation, importation, exportation or implantation of certain other embryos for ethical and safety reasons;establishes a principal committee within the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the NHMRC Embryo Research Licensing Committee (the NHMRC Licensing Committee), for the purposes of performing functions and exercising powers under the Bill;This is a difficult debate for all members of parliament. It is difficult for me; I have contacted and been contacted by many of my constituents. I respect all those on both sides of this debate, and that is why it is important that we have a conscience vote in this place. I know there are very deeply held religious beliefs and there are moral and ethical issues. I was brought up as an Anglican in the Christian sense and I have a mother who holds very strong views in relation to the Christian beliefs, and so I have been in a very privileged position in having the care, support and guidance which the Christian faith gives all of us in this place.I want to address one of the ethical issues relating to excess embryos that are produced by the IVF program, or assisted reproductive technologies. IVF was licensed 25 years ago in Australia for the establishment of assisted reproductive technology. In other words, the IVF program allowed the creation of embryos outside of the human body. One of the results of that program is that there are inevitably surplus embryos which are ultimately going to have to be destroyed. The debate we had 25 years ago was about, firstly, whether we would allow assisted reproductive technologies to be established in Australia, knowing that these embryos were going to be created outside of the human body, that more than required would be created as part of that process and that, ultimately, they would be destroyed. I know that many couples have children of their own today as a result of that science. So the very fact that this technology was licensed 25 years ago has, I am sure, given joy to many thousands and thousands of Australians. This technology has enabled them to have children of their own, which otherwise would not have been the case. It gave them hope in many ways that they could have their own children.Knowing that 25 years ago we allowed the IVF program to be established and knowing, as a result of that, that there would be surplus embryos created, what are the options today for those who participated in the IVF program who have stored excess embryos? I think this debate is a lot about that. What do those people think about excess embryos that have been created so that those people can have children of their own? My understanding is that, of those people who have stored excess embryos, 10 per cent of those couples agree that they would like to donate their embryos to other couples who have not even been able to establish embryos of their own, 50 to 60 per cent of couples would agree to donate those excess embryos to research; and in the order of 25 to 40 per cent of couples would request that the embryos be destroyed.I am not a scientist myself, but I guess all of us in the House who do not have a scientific background or a medical background have had to look very deeply into this issue. When we look at the issue of stem cells—and there has been debate about adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells—it is my understanding that embryonic stem cells are immortal, that they can be multiplied in the laboratory for years to produce large numbers of cells. I understand that they can, for instance, create a nerve or blood cells or even skin from stem cells. I also understand that this creates opportunities for the discovery of new regenerative medicines. I also understand, by contrast, that adult stem cells are much less able to multiply and are unable to differentiate into as many cell types as embryonic stem cells can. That, I am told, is the science.As a result of the IVF program, I am advised that today there are something like 70,000 excess embryos that are in storage, in limbo, which are basically the property of those for whom the embryos have been created. I am also aware that, depending on the regulatory regime of the state in which you live, after certain periods of time—I think in Victoria it is up to five years—these embryos are destroyed. I think in South Australia it is 10 years, and in Western Australia it is 15 years. I understand that something like 5,000 embryos are destroyed each year.I guess when I looked at this question I wondered: if we were to allow scientists access to excess embryos on the agreement of those for whom the embryos have first been created—which is where it has to start—are there gains to be made by allowing scientists access to these embryos? I guess we really do not know. I guess 50 years ago we did not know that modern medicine and science would have advanced to the point where there is hope for finding a cure for cancer. Science will always be seeking to, I guess, ease the pain for all of us and extend our lives. We only have to look at the average life span of someone born today and compare that with someone born 50 years ago. In so many instances it is science that has enabled us to live longer.I understand from the reading that I have done on this that obviously science is looking for breakthroughs in degenerative diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, because those who are of the scientific medical community believe they can, in time, replace damaged tissues. Perhaps in that area there is the hope for those people who suffer today or who will suffer in the future that science may one day, as it has in other areas, make a better quality of life. Science ultimately has allowed many couples to have children who would never have been able to have children without the advances in science. In many ways people in this debate have talked about the hope and the improvements that may come in the future. I would like to raise the expectation that it will, but I also accept that it may not. I think there has been a lot of hope and, in some cases, some false expectations as to what this bill may be able to achieve should it pass and allow access to embryonic stem cells for science.The question I had to ask myself at the end of the day was: should we allow those who have excess embryos that have been created for the purposes of forming a pregnancy to donate those excess embryos to science? That is the question we should ask ourselves. The other question was: would it be ethically acceptable? I go back to the IVF issues. We have had the IVF program in this country now for 25 years, and I am sure that at the time of its inception there was a large ethical, moral and religious debate about whether we should allow that program in this country. The rest is history, of course, because it has been allowed, along with the benefits I outlined earlier. I believe that, should this bill pass, we are ultimately allowing the people who have excess embryos from an IVF program to decide what happens to those excess embryos. That is ultimately what we are doing. It is not the parliament that will decide what happens to those excess embryos; it is the people who have excess embryos, in excess of what they require, who ultimately will decide. Is it my right to say that they should not have the right to decide? Is it something we do not want to allow? Is it something that parliament should not allow? I believe it is their right to decide what will happen to the embryos that were created for the purposes of creating a pregnancy in the female donor. In considering this bill and talking with many of my constituents, I made the decision to support the bill with the conditions outlined in it, and I want to repeat some of those because there are a large number of prohibitive practices that come with this bill. It will be an offence under this legislation to create a human embryo clone. It will be an offence to place a human embryo clone in a human body or the body of an animal. It will be an offence to import or export human embryo clones. It will be an offence to create a human embryo for purposes other than for achieving pregnancy in a woman. It will also be an offence to flush embryos from the female. Some of those offences will carry very heavy fines and imprisonment.Where there are excess embryos from an IVF program, if there is the consent of the two contributing adults, and if there is to be a review of this legislation in the year 2005 and, as part of this bill, there is the establishment of the National Health Medical Research Council committee, I believe that, on balance, the bill does deserve the support of the parliament. It will have the effect of providing a national approach to this issue. At the end of the day, with that regulatory regime, including the bans spelling out quite clearly in legislation the role of the National Health and Medical Research Council, we are by this process allowing the contributing adults, who I believe own the excess embryos, to decide what happens to them. The bill has my support.17:10:006089Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyIND00—I think there is a time to handle issues with sensitivity and there is a time to call a spade a spade. My initial reaction to the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 was to call a spade a spade. I said that in all of human history experiments have been done on animals before those experiments are carried out on humans. Since one could use adult cells, as has been done with Parkinson's disease with adult brain cells to some benefit—I would not like to say that they have come to some cure of Parkinson's disease but there have most certainly been some hopeful signs—why are these people not working with adult cells or with animal cells? The only reason I can come up with is that there are a lot of people who are pretty keen on becoming Dr Moreau or Dr Frankenstein. We read a lot about them in the very famous book Brave New World. That being the case, I think they should be stopped immediately.Subsequently I read an article in the Canberra Times by Sir Gustav Nossal and a number of other articles. It seemed to me, and it was argued, that since these cells have the ability to grow and are genetically uncoded there were some very real possibilities, and possibilities that I most certainly would have to look at seriously. I remember Napoleon Bonaparte's famous comment when he took control of France and most of Europe. They asked him whether he was going to continue the cult of reason, which was Rousseau's replacement for the Christian religion. Bonaparte is said not to have even looked at the departmental official that asked the question when he said, `Don't be ridiculous! What use do I have for a religion that asks me how to get to heaven?' And that was the end of the cult of reason.Looking at the idea that the moral arbiter should be our Christian churches, for those that ascribe to the Christian faith, I think that there has to be enormous persuasive weight on moral issues attributed to our church leaders. I think they are very deserving of that sort of respect at all times. But of course that respect can be taken too far. We do not abandon our own personal intellectual and moral convictions simply because the church to which we belong takes a position on an issue. So I do not think that one has the right to abandon one's intellectual integrity and to simply hide behind a church decision.Let me return to the stem cell which is not genetically coded, which is at the very heart of this debate. The fact that it is not genetically coded makes it possible to code it in such a way that it can possibly cause the growth of a severed spinal cord, for example, or a pancreas that does not exist. It also has the potential, since it is not coded, to simply run amok and, by definition, become a cancer. This has occurred in the experiments that have taken place. When I considered the vast array of information that was placed before us, I could not find one example where genetic coding of these uncoded cells had successfully taken place. Having taken that initial position, I was led to believe by many of the papers on this matter, which I think all of us have read, that the egg was not fertilised and so had no ability to become a human being. Sir Gustav Nossal's article states:The egg has not and cannot become a human being. I do not think that Sir Gustav would deliberately mislead, but I was certainly misled by what he wrote because, as I understood it, the egg was not fertilised. Later on I was advised that it was fertilised. So now we have a little minihuman being in the making that some time in the future will grow into a full human being. That puts an entirely different complexion on what we are talking about here. We are back to Dr Moreau and Dr Frankenstein and Brave New World if we are talking about playing around with human beings. In light of that information, which must certainly be treated with great alarm, I go back to my first intellectual position of: `No way Jose; we deal with animal stem cells first.' A lobby group came to see me. I think they were very good people. I was very impressed with the sincerity and the moral and intellectual perspective taken in their argument. I said to them, `I have two difficulties here about cells.' They went through the argument that the cells were non-genetically coded and that maybe they had some ability that a genetically coded cell did not have. That is a very tenuous argument. I would have thought that, if you want spinal cord, you use spinal cord cells; if you want brain cells, as in the case of Parkinson's disease, you work with brain cells, not uncoded stem cells. So I did not think that the power of that argument was very great. I said the second argument was that throughout human history we have always experimented with animals and, if we were successful in an experiment, we would take that experimentation and apply it to human beings. A lady from the lobby group said, `We have done that, and done that successfully.' This was a tiny bit naughty of her because I asked her for the research. I said, `If that had been done, I would have been aware of it,' because there have been a lot of articles written on stem cells. She said that she would provide me with that information, which she did not do. I rang up another proponent of stem cell research—and I thank that scientist very sincerely—and, without hesitation, she sent me the results. I am afraid the results did not indicate that they had successfully restored the use of the hindquarters of a mouse that had a severed spinal cord. In fact, you would argue that it did just the opposite: they had failed to do that. If we have a case in the future of a mouse that has had stem cells injected into it and it is able to walk again—that is, its anatomy is restored to the degree that it has the use of its limbs once again—I think we would have to look again at this legislation. I personally would have to revisit my decision to oppose this legislation. If we have a situation in which we know that, if we do this, it will remove human pain, misery and suffering, then I believe this thing would have to be revisited and a lot of people like me may well change their position on these issues.I was one of the two members of parliament that led the anti-abortion debate in the state of Queensland. I have never argued from a moral perspective that this is the moral thing to do, and I have never had to, ironically enough. In the case of abortion, I simply asked the question: is there any member of this state parliament in Queensland who has not had a person come to them in tears wanting to adopt a baby and knowing that there are no babies for adoption? That does not occur very much these days, because everybody knows there are no babies for adoption. But in days past there were reportedly something like 50,000 adoptions a year. There are 120,000 little children banged on the head before they are born.I have a situation in Charters Towers where we are told that we have lost our park in the centre of town because the young of the bats could die if they were removed from the park. I said: `That doesn't seem to create a very great problem with the young of human beings, the homo sapiens species. I don't see why it should worry us governmentally if we apply the same decision to the bats in the park.' Constantly we see the enormous efforts to rescue whales and to save trees and all of these things, yet human beings—120,000 of them—are knocked on the head or whatever else is done to them, some of them most unpleasant things, before they are born.At some future date in history, people will look back on that period of time and say, `What heinous behaviour, what inhuman behaviour.' In days past, as many people on that side of the debate have said, in the days of slavery, they did not have any difficulty in treating the Negro people like they did because they were slaves, they were something of a lesser order. It seems to me continuously these days that the interests of human beings are denigrated and the interests of trees or animals are put over those of human beings. Where you have a species that can consciously destroy 120,000 of its young every single year, in the bigger scheme of things, evolution takes a very long look at a species that in fact places itself in such jeopardy.There is a price to be paid for all of these decisions that we collectively take as a society. The price that Australians pay is that we are a vanishing race of people. I cite Mr Bob Birrell of Melbourne University and a very important landmark paper that was published in the Australian newspaper where he, as a demographer, points out that in 100 years time the population of Australia will be around six million to seven million people. I doubted that and went to the library here at parliament. You do not have to be Albert Einstein to work it out. Every 20 people that die in Australia are replaced by 17 people. If you do that through five generations, it is not very difficult to do your mathematics and figure out that we will be down around that sort of figure. People say, `Oh, but there's immigration.' Yes, there is. But they are not Australians. They will be people that will come here subsequently. They are not the Australian race as it now stands.I had no difficulty in asserting those beliefs and saying that the future for Australia with a dwindling population is a very ugly future indeed. Already now we have enormous difficulties with our contempt for human life, and particularly unborn human life, in proceeding as a race of people because the costs of looking after our old people is such a growing and huge burden. Those of us who went through the debate here on old people's homes heard the Treasurer tell us that we were looking at $40,000 million a year to look after people in the old people's homes. That will increase with each passing day, and there will be progressively fewer and fewer people to provide the tax or the work force to look after those people. The other reason that I have strong feelings about it is that we clothe that behaviour in respectability. The alternative is to look after these young women who find themselves in this situation and to encourage them to have the happiness and joy of having children. I am one of the very few arch conservatives who does not condemn unmarried mothers. I am unable to condemn anyone who has kids, regardless of the circumstances. Ross Cameron, one of the members of parliament here, got a lot of publicity by saying that men today are not prepared to make a commitment to marriage. So, for many girls, if they want to have babies, they really do not have a lot of options. If they go down that pathway, they bring joy and happiness into the world, and I think that is a wonderful thing.As a race of people, homo sapiens, we are descended from successful mothers. We are genetically programmed to look after our young. For those women who choose to sever the life of their young, I cannot help but believe that some very dark psychological factors will work on them in the short term and in the long term. Study after study indicates that that is the case. You cannot be genetically programmed to look after your species and then go in a complete opposite direction without paying some sort of genetic price for the decision that you have taken.I earnt a lot of notoriety and, in fact, effectively, condemned myself to political oblivion in a disagreement with the then Premier, Mr Ahern, about the sale of condoms, of all things, in Aboriginal communities. There was a line of opinion which I very deeply regret to say was that it would be better if these people were not breeding as much as they were at that time. It gives me very great pain to have to say that in this place. But that was one of many pressures. I am not saying that that pressure came from Mr Ahern; it most certainly did not. I did not have any particular moral hang-ups in the sense that they were available 24 hours a day from the medical aid post. Anyone could just walk up to the medical aid post, which was in every Aboriginal community, and take one or a number of them. But there was a big difference between providing them free from the medical aid post and selling them over the counter and promoting and advertising them in the supermarkets, and that I was not prepared to do. Whilst it looked like I had bent the knee and agreed to do it, of course I resigned before I did it. And the rest is a little piece of Queensland history: Mr Ahern was removed by me and others some two or three months later.People care and have very strong opinions about these issues, and quite rightly so. Similarly, in the homosexual debate, again I did not take a moralistic position that this was intrinsically wrong or intrinsically evil. My argument centred upon the fact that, statistically speaking, one in four people who participate in that behaviour will contract HIV and condemn themselves to death. So I said: `If you tell your children that this is acceptable behaviour, statistically speaking, you are saying, “Play Russian roulette,” but they would not be playing with a six-chambered revolver but a four-chambered revolver.' That is what you would be saying to your children. I am not prepared to say that to our young people. There are very grave dangers in indulging in this behaviour, and that should be pointed out to our young people, instead of finding that behaviour acceptable. I do not believe that they should be put in jail or anything like that.The point that I am making is that we should bring a questing and questioning moral weighing-up to these problems and not take a principle laid down, for example, by any Christian church—but we should not ignore the position taken by a Christian church or any other church. With all due respect, their positions should be taken very seriously indeed. If we disagree with the leadership and the moral stand that they are taking, we will want to have very good reasons indeed to do that.I will conclude by talking about a delightful kids' movie called Young Einstein. In the concluding scene, after Einstein had found out about the formula E=mc2, which had great potential for humanity, he said, `I'm going to give this formula and these principles to the governments of the world, because we can't trust anyone else except the governments of the world to look after this information.' Of course, the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can tell you about allowing people to go into areas that create very great dangers for homo sapiens as a species on this earth.17:30:006093Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—For me and, I suspect, for many of my colleagues, the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 has been one of the most difficult pieces of legislation I have had to consider in the time that I have been here. It is difficult because of the immensity of the implications that flow from it and difficult because of the strength of the arguments on both sides. The conviction with which diverse views are held and the passion with which colleagues have argued either case is certainly evidence of the importance of this issue.Before addressing the key issues, as I see them, in the proposed legislation, I want to make two preliminary comments. Firstly, like all other speakers, I am strongly opposed to human cloning and thus support the part of the bill which aims to prevent human cloning. Secondly, I am not opposed to stem cell research as such. Clearly, there will be substantial long-term benefits if we can relieve suffering as a result of medical breakthroughs achieved by carrying out stem cell research. However, the central question is whether such research should be allowed on embryonic stem cells or whether it should be restricted to adult stem cells. I believe this question is far more than just a scientific one. It almost seems simplistic to say that the critical question in this debate is: `What is right?' Yet, with the focus on pushing the frontiers, science can too easily see this as a second-order question. If we make our decisions on the basis of what is possible, what is attractive and what is achievable, without regard to what is right—that is, if we make them in a moral and ethical vacuum—then we, as a society, move into very dangerous territory. Determining what is right, of course, is far easier said than done. With many issues, the question of right and wrong, of ethical and unethical, is relatively uncontentious. With others, it is far more difficult. In this case, I believe it is far from easy, which is why people of integrity, including colleagues whose opinions I respect, have taken positions on both sides.To me, the key questions in this debate are as follows. Firstly, is it justified under any condition to destroy life, no matter how good the cause? I certainly do not pretend to be a scientist, and I recognise that opinion is strongly divided as to whether or not an embryo is in fact human life. But, if we do not accept the human embryo—which has all the features of a human cell, with its unique DNA, and, given the right circumstances, is capable of fully developing into an independent human being—as human life, where do we accept that human life starts? I refer to the comments of Professor David Prentice, Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University, who says:The root of the debate really comes down to the ethical question of what's the moral status of a human embryo? Is it a person or is it a piece of property? Does the apparent relative insignificance of an embryo compared to a newly born child or an adult justify its destruction in the hope of saving the life of that child or adult? In very simple terms, do the ends justify the means? For me, it surely is not defensible to destroy life in order to hopefully save another life. If we begin to treat embryos as pieces of tissue rather than life, we establish a very dangerous precedent. Going down the utilitarian path, where humans are valued not for their intrinsic humanness but for their usefulness, has immense implications for our society and especially for its most vulnerable members. If we dispense with our commitment to upholding the sanctity of life, we make the first step along that path.The second question revolves around the destiny of embryos which are surplus to IVF needs. If they were going to be destroyed in any case, the argument goes, then why not use them for something positive—why not use them in a way which may ultimately lead to some good? Surely it seems far better to do that than to have them simply perish on no account and to no perceived worthwhile use. This particular argument is one that I initially found quite persuasive, and it almost convinced me to support this legislation. But on further consideration that argument does not seem quite as simple as that. There is a fundamental difference between simply allowing an embryo to succumb and deliberately destroying it. While the analogy is not perfect, it seems to me to be akin to the difference between turning off someone's life support system and actively taking their life. If life is sacred and inviolable then we must do what we can to protect it.Our own medical tradition is based on fundamental principles which date back to the Greek physician Hippocrates. The first principle of this tradition is: `Do no harm.' This principle was further enshrined in UNESCO's Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights in 1997 and the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki in 2000. These codes regarding medical research contain three basic principles: firstly, that medical research must respect the dignity and integrity of the human research subject; secondly, that it must not result in death or disabling injury; and, thirdly, that it must put the wellbeing of the human subject before the interests of science and society. It seems to me that those three basic principles are violated if we allow research on human embryos.The third question is: if we do allow destruction at the embryo stage of life, even for honourable purposes, where do we draw the line? For instance, if the supply of embryos proves to be insufficient for research, how do we confront the push to create further embryos for the purpose of facilitating research? I know the current legislation prevents that but, with the supposed gains already made with that existing stock of embryos, how do we resist that push by scientists and researchers—a push which may well lead to deliberate farming of embryos? The 14-day limit imposed by this bill is a limit which, as I understand it, has no absolute philosophical or biological base. It is an arbitrarily decided limit. What happens if the push is to go beyond those 14 days to, say, 30 days or 60 days? Where do we then draw the line? Further, what if researchers want to try other research on human embryos?In the evidence to the Andrews committee, for example, a number of other proposals were suggested. They involve extensions such as including the use of fresh rather than frozen embryos because they would supposedly be of better quality. Other pieces of proposed destructive research include the micromanipulation of embryos, growing embryos with other cells and using enzymes and chemicals to change the embryo. Where do we draw the line? If we do not draw the line by saying, `Life cannot be destroyed,' where along that continuum do we draw the line? I noticed today, in a book by the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, a section that refers to the Australian company Stem Cell Sciences. It argued that they would have a `broader interest in the creation of defective cloned human embryos for pharmaceutical testing'. Does that become allowable? Do we then finally reduce our opposition to human cloning? Some researchers have clearly indicated their intentions in this area if it were allowed. Somewhere along this continuum we have to act to preserve the dignity and inviolability of human life. We need to draw a line somewhere. We need to make a stand, and it seems to me that the most logical point to make that stand is at the first step, which says that life at whichever stage is indispensable; that life at whichever stage is sacred and needs to be preserved. Once we go further down that path it becomes increasingly difficult to find an agreeable point at which to make that stand. Much has been made of the potential cures that may follow from embryonic stem cell research for sufferers of a range of illnesses, including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, spinal injury, motor neurone disease and a number of others. None of us wants to see people, our loved ones, our friends or our family suffering unnecessarily if a cure can be found. Yet, as I read it, the potential cures from embryonic stem cell research have been unfairly exaggerated in a way that holds out unrealistic hope for many current sufferers. Some of the correspondence I have received has been from people saying, `One of my loved ones is suffering. By passing this legislation you will most likely have a cure for them within the next couple of years.' I think it is quite sad that the way the debate has gone has unfairly built expectations that are most unlikely to be filled. From what I read, it is very much a long-term process and there would be many years of embryonic stem cell research before any significant breakthrough is made. Even then, as I understand it, those breakthroughs are fraught with danger, particularly regarding their potential for uncontrolled malignancy and immune system rejection.On the other hand, from what I have read, adult stem cell research offers far more potential and has already achieved a number of breakthroughs, and the evidence suggests that they can be every bit as effective and flexible as embryonic stem cells. I am sure many other speakers have referred to examples, many of which were put to the Andrews committee, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, that looked at this issue. An article in the British Medical Journal in 1999 said:There is a growing understanding that adult stem cells may be more flexible than previously thought. Recent research has shown that adult stem cells can differentiate into developmentally unrelated cell types, such as nerve cells, and into blood cells.According to experts writing in Science Magazine of February 2000:Bone marrow stem cells appear to be very versatile, forming brain and muscle cells and liver cell precursors.And in Science Magazine of June 1999:Adult neural stem cells, previously thought to be committed to becoming various types of nerve cells, can de-differentiate and become blood cell precursors.US doctors have taken adult stem cells from the brain of a patient with Parkinson's disease and reimplanted them, resulting in an 83 per cent improvement in the patient. Washington Medical Centre treated 26 patients with rapidly deteriorating multiple sclerosis: 20 patients stabilised and six improved following treatment with adult stem cells. I quote again:The immune systems of children, destroyed by cancer, were restored in some trials using umbilical cord stem cells ...Those of course are adult stem cells. In the US, adult stem cells have been used to treat sickle cell anaemia. Quoting from the Adult Stem Cells Client Memorandum and Research Service—clearly a service that is putting one side of the argument but, again, strongly encouraging signs about the potential:Immunological rejection is less likely to occur if the patient is treated with their own modified adult stem cells, whereas a major problem of ES cell transplantation is rejection.According to the Wall Street Journal, `The French, Germans and Japanese have commenced human trials using individual patient stem cells to regenerate heart muscles; children with immune deficiency have been treated with adult stem cells; corneal stem cells have been used to treat blindness'—and on it goes. I do not want to overstate progress here either, but the point is that research using adult stem cells has progressed every bit as far—in fact, much further—than research using embryonic stem cells, without the complications of malignancy and rejection and with far more potential. In spite of this, advocates of embryonic stem cell research argue that we should be fast-tracking parallel research—that we should be trying to advance research in both adult and embryonic stem cells. If there were no ethical dilemma, I would agree that this might be a reasonable argument; but for many, including me, there is an ethical issue here. Further, there is an issue of finite resources for research funding. It is a fact that, with finite resources, the more that is put into embryonic stem cell research, the less is available for adult stem cell research. Given that there is a finite quantity of funding for research, given that adult stem cell research is where most progress has been and given that it does not involve the ethical dilemma of destroying life, surely that is where the focus ought to be. I am also concerned about how much the research is being driven by commercial interests and the potential profits to be derived in the biotech industry. No doubt most people involved in this research are driven by purely altruistic motives—wanting to do what they can to achieve breakthroughs in medical science. I am sure that most people are acting totally ethically in this way but, sadly, some are driven by the potential fortunes to be made from tradeable patented discoveries and intellectual property. The general manager of a genetic engineering company, telling the Andrews committee about the company's business plan, said:If we own the intellectual property over the genes that can turn an embryonic stem cell, or even an adult stem cell, from the phenotype into something else, and I can licence that perhaps non-exclusively, to everyone in the world, that is fantastic. Maybe I can keep it for myself and then I have got a monopoly that I can say is worth X amount in value. That is the real driver for me.Sadly, some of the push has come from the wrong direction. Sadly, as well, the revelations yesterday about Dr Trounson's research are very disappointing. They certainly cast doubt on the veracity of at least some of his claims.No-one pretends that this is an easy issue and no-one pretends that they have all the answers. I certainly do not—not in the slightest. But ultimately, to me, this debate is about more than science and medical research; it is about what we as a society believe and stand for in regard to human life. Once we make a decision to cross the line which allows research on human embryos—that is, to allow the deliberate destruction of human life, no matter how good the cause—it will be almost impossible to step back inside that line. Such decisions are rarely reversible. When the implications are so profound, surely we must exercise caution. For that reason, I am opposed to this bill.17:48:006096Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—This, as many have said, is a seminal debate in that, first, it gives us a conscience vote, it allows us to range across political and religious boundaries and it demonstrates the effectiveness of our parliamentary system when it is used appropriately. There have been some very thoughtful, challenging and deeply expressed contributions in this debate. Second, whether we like it or not, this is a threshold for our nation. Once crossed, whatever the decision, it will mark us indelibly for generations.There are two aspects to the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. First, that which seeks approval of the use of the so-called surplus embryos from IVF programs and, second, that which says that there should be a prohibition in all circumstances on human cloning. I believe it is an offence to ask anyone with reservations to vote on these two issues as one. I am therefore one of those who support the separation of the two issues. To do otherwise would be to negate the mantle of conscience which we have promoted during this debate. It would be an affront to the whole concept of conscience not to allow the separation of the two issues. Forced to vote only one way I would oppose the bill, not because I approve in any way of cloning but because I would find the rest so offensive.The rate of change of human endeavour and science has increased exponentially over the last century. Aviation, with all its wonders of space travel, is not yet 100 years old, radio broadcasting is 80 and nuclear power is 60. We live in an age of almost instant communications where data and information are exchanged at lightning speeds. The most complex storage, computations and transactions can take place in a computer at the touch of a keyboard. Medical science has expanded in the same way. We have seen penicillin, antibiotics and insulin all discovered over recent years. Polio and smallpox have been almost totally eliminated. Implants to restore hearing have been designed and developed in Australia. There is now the possibility of restoration of sight through the use of implants. Wondrous machines probe our inner being as we get involved in unsurpassed diagnostic tools, and then we have nuclear treatment of disease. In fact, more has occurred in the last 20 years than in the previous 200, and in that 200 years probably more has occurred than in the previous 2,000.Let me take you to the other side of the equation. Given the exponential explosion of knowledge and science, what might we expect over the next two years, coming down from 2,000, to 200, to 20, to two? Or, if you think that is a bit dramatic, say 10 years. Sadly, the mark of human progress in science has not been matched by a corresponding enhancement of ethics, religious rigour or social behaviour. I am by nature an optimist. I am trusting—my family say to my detriment—and I take people as I find them. But this issue challenges me as much as any in my years in parliament and forces me to take a step back and examine the landscape of life experience, behaviour and the ethical downstream effects of what might flow from this decision. It really challenges my basic optimism and I envy those who rest so easily with their god and with their consciences on this weighty matter. I have listened to many of them and they seem to be quite at ease with it. I have no argument with people who come to these decisions in good conscience, but I think those who have been dazzled by the spin doctoring and the wizardry of science in this debate have sold themselves short. They have been seduced by utilitarianism. Not so in my electorate. Of the contributions I have had to my office, 67 per cent are against embryonic stem cell research, 28 per cent have asked me to vote carefully and five per cent are in favour of embryonic stem cell research. So my experience is quite different from that of some of the others who have spoken of their experiences in their electorates. But it goes beyond statistics. What we are talking about here is the very essence of life. It goes to the core of our human condition. To pretend anything else is an obscenity. This is unquestionably a new threshold in science and in the nature of human life as future generations will know and experience it.In this debate we have had some very innovative definitions of conception; I did not know there could be so many. Some would now have us believe that the human condition only commences with the implementation of the fertilised egg in the uterus. Again, whether we like it or not, life commences at the point of fertilisation. Our character, our being, our DNA are marked for all times from that moment. Indeed, legislation around the world focuses on the respect for the embryo, yet we suddenly say that an embryo that is under 14 days has a different status. The argument is then advanced that the so-called spare embryos from artificial reproduction techniques should be made available for research. It is then proposed that those embryos not used would be destroyed. So what we are doing is saying that we can experiment on them in the cause of humanity and that, if we do it that way, it is not such a bad thing. But if we accept that argument, we are saying that you can take a scalpel to them, develop your own stem line and, in so doing, kill them. I do not accept that. I am not talking about a scalpel literally, but various invasive laser and chemical treatments are the result. In this day and age we tend to gloss over that, but that is what happens. In fact, one of the techniques is called drilling—drilling this live material with a laser.Much of the debate is centred around the relative merits of embryonic stem cell and adult stem cell research. If one examines the impact of adult stem cell medical research, it is at the cutting edge of treatment and the results are already impressive. All the examples I will give are based on treatment with adult stem cells. As at June 2001, the American Diabetic Association reported that 15 people with serious type 1 juvenile diabetes had become insulin free, while nine ceased to require insulin injections. In June 2001, the Toronto Globe and Mail described the case of a young woman with paraplegia who gained movement of her legs and toes after injections of her own immune system cells into her severed spinal cord. We have heard about a number of children born without an immune system; we call them bubble children. These children can now be cured with injections of altered bone marrow subjected to adult stem cell treatment. In July last year, the New England Journal of Medicine reported severely blind people being able to see after their corneas were reconstructed using corneal stem cells.There is also considerable promising research, both on its own and in combination with chemotherapy, in the fields of brain and solid tumours, breast and ovarian cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. As well, there is other research going on in the fields of multiple sclerosis, lupus and stroke. Chemical trials have already indicated significant potential benefits in using adult stem cells to treat diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's as well as nerve damage, organ and heart valve transplants, diabetes and pancreatic disorders. In short, there is a great deal of cutting edge research well advanced in the field of adult stem cell research. I heard a lot of my colleagues talking about people in wheelchairs and what embryonic stem cells might do for them but, strangely, I never heard them mention any of these cases. In fact, there is one of these cases in Queensland at present, where someone is being treated with adult stem cells for spinal cord damage.As late as June 2001, the Washington National Academy of Sciences said, when reporting on embryonic stem cells and what they might achieve, that the cells would help no patients—none. They said:None. These cells have never helped a human patient.Marcus Grompe of the Oregon Health Sciences University said:There is no evidence of therapeutic benefit from embryonic stem cells.Professor Vogelstein, Professor of Oncology and Pathology at Johns Hopkins University, one of the most distinguished institutions in medical science, said:There is no experience with embryonic stem cells in humans, and very little in mice.He described all claims of therapeutic benefits from embryonic stem cells as `conjectural'. That quote is quite relevant in the context of this debate today because yesterday we had an article by Dennis Shanahan entitled `Stem-cell rat trick angers MPs'. Indeed, it angered me because nowhere in Professor Trounson's briefings of us in this place did he make the distinction that he made in that article. Tapes and films of the rat have been widely distributed. We are now told that the rat was not treated with embryonic stem cells but, rather, with cells from an aborted foetus. It seems to me that all of the talk of embryonic stem cells revolves around the prospective: `it might', `it could', `there is every opportunity', `we cannot deny', `we must explore every scientific avenue,' `What might happen if cures are found overseas?' There has been in this debate a great deal of moral and intellectual blackmail—I do not mean by my colleagues but from outside. Those who favour the adult stem cells avenue of research are accused of being intellectually elite. We are told that, if we turn a blind eye to embryonic stem cells, we are dooming people in wheelchairs and those with degenerative diseases to a sad and hopeless life. Yet thus far there is no evidence that embryonic stem cell research can produce the results that adult stem cells have already been delivering.Another form of intellectual blackmail is to say that we are denying Australian scientists the opportunities that are found overseas: `We'll trail behind the rest of the world; we will lose our best and our brightest to overseas laboratories.' I find that strange for a number of reasons. One is that three of the states have already more rigorous rules in place in relation to IVF and material used in IVF—and, if all of those claims are true, why haven't we lost them already?I also subscribe to the `slippery slope' argument. I take you back to the abortion debate. I am not going to canvass abortion as an issue here tonight, other than to say this: when abortion was first promulgated, it was only to be if the mother's life or mental condition was at great risk. Last year, on a conservative estimate, there were 90,000 abortions in Australia. There is now one abortion for every 2.5 live births. I move on to the euthanasia debate. In the Northern Territory, with the euthanasia debate, we were told that three doctors would have to sign the forms to allow a person to be euthanased. That was to be a GP, a specialist and a person from the field of medical science commensurate with the disease from which the person was suffering. Even before the legislation had been utilised, even before we had rejected that legislation here in the federal parliament, moves were already on in the Northern Territory to reduce that from three doctors to two.Going now to the embryo, if we go to embryonic stem cell research, would we stop at 14 days, or would the pressure that is already evident for taking that out to 60 days soon become even greater? The signals from the scientific community are quite mixed. As recently—and this tells you how far it could go—as 8 May at Monash University in a debate called `Should we allow embryonic research' the affirmative team, which contained Professor Trounson as a member, argued the case for therapeutic cloning. That was on 8 May this year.We are told that there are sufficient spare embryos to give us a limitless supply of research material, but then others tell us otherwise. How far are we prepared to go? Are we prepared to allow the harvesting of eggs and sperm? Also, at the psychological level, are we going to allow people to be subjected to pressure? It has been said by a prominent ethicist that, when asked for their frozen and spare embryos for science, some people felt a sense of obligation to the scientists who helped them become pregnant, some felt a general sense of obligation to science itself and some felt a sense of obligation to the community. These are very powerful pressures at a time when people are going through a sensitive process.I would like to touch briefly on one other aspect, and that is the very emotive language that is used about the spare embryos that are allowed to succumb in the laboratory dish. We hear that they are going to be chucked down the drain or the toilet or thrown in the rubbish bin. An embryo succumbing in a dish is no different from someone who in the latter part of their life is in a vegetative state and dying in a bed. We do not allow experimentation on someone who cannot speak for themselves, someone who has lived a life and who might be in a vegetative state. I suggest to you that, if a life deemed not worth living is approved for termination prenatally, a life deemed not worth living at the other end of the life cycle is at risk.I would like to finish by talking about one of my favourite people, Thomas More. Thomas Moore was a great English statesman and philosopher. He was under pressure to take an oath in which he did not believe. His whole family was pressuring him, even his favourite daughter, Margaret. He explained to his daughter Margaret that when you take an oath you hold yourself in your hands, no matter what the reason for taking that oath. And Margaret said to him, `Look, Dad, can't you just take this oath verbally but in your heart mean otherwise?' He said, `No, because once you take an oath you hold yourself in your hands and, once let go, you never capture yourself again.' We are not talking about an oath here, but we are talking about a threshold in human development and in science. With this issue, we very much hold ourselves in our hands as we never have before—and I suggest that, if we let this go, we may never hope to capture ourselves again.18:08:006100Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 strikes a balance between hope and caution. It opens the door to the development of scientific breakthroughs which offer the hope of dignity for fellow human beings who are suffering and the hope of a better life for future generations, who stand to be the true beneficiaries of our actions today. It also allows hope for Australia's scientific community to maintain and build upon its reputation as world class leaders in responsible scientific research and development. Yet the bill is a reminder that it is not the scientists who set the goalposts for progress but the community at large through its democratically elected representatives. This bill and, indeed, this debate demonstrate that progress is best achieved most safely, fairly and with minimal risk under public scrutiny. Like most members of this place, I am no expert in this field of science. However, I am confident that the parliament, through this bill, can strike a balance which reflects our community standards and values; and, in a debate such as this, it is important that we respect those standards and values even when they do not align with our own. A vote in favour of this bill is not only a vote in favour of responsible scientific research but also a vote of confidence in our democratic system. On the one hand, the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is a small and cautious step to explore what is possible for medical developments using spare embryonic stem cells. On the other hand, it sends a powerful message of what society will not tolerate from this field of science.In speaking in support of the bill I propose to outline how the balance between hope and caution is achieved. I will deal with the realistic expectations from embryonic stem cell line development and I will point out the controls contained in the bill, which include setting outer limits on research and embedding procedural safeguards designed to ensure the research is conducted in a safe and transparent manner.The bill's stated object is to `address concerns, including ethical concerns, about scientific developments in relation to human reproduction' by prohibiting certain practices and regulating the use of excess embryos from assisted reproductive technology. The bill sets up a restricted, transparent and accountable scheme for authorising the use of a special class of embryos. Under the scheme, spare embryos can only be used in limited circumstances.A potential use of the embryos is the derivation of stem cells. Stem cells are human cells that can multiply indefinitely and turn into specialised cell types as they multiply. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent cells, which means that they can turn into any cell type in the body. Once extracted from an embryo, embryonic stem cells can be grown in culture and can replicate indefinitely. The isolation and extension of stem cells from a single embryo can lead to the creation of thousands of identical stem cells, which are known as an embryonic stem cell line.Embryonic stem cells have the ability to develop into a diverse range of specialised human tissues and organs which can be used to treat disease. For example, embryonic stem cell lines could be used to develop skin cells for the treatment of burns or to develop bone marrow for cancer patients. They could generate nerve cells for the treatment of Parkinson's disease and paralysis and insulin-producing cells for diabetics. Stem cell lines could even be used to create organs to replace diseased organs. Much has been said in the debate about how realistic these expectations are. I note that, even before those possibilities might be achieved, this bill will authorise the use of embryos for basic research into embryonic development and fertilisation, the examination of gene expression patterns of developing embryos and the improvement of and training in ART techniques.Scientific breakthroughs never commence with great certainty or necessarily universal acceptance. They require years of hard work, dedication, trying and failing and trying again. I am sure that all members of this place, on both sides of this debate, can draw on personal experiences of those who might benefit from this research. For my own part, I am an honorary life member of the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research in Perth, formerly known as the TVW Telethon Institute for Child Health Research and, before that, known as the WA Research Institute for Child Health. My role with that organisation as a director from 1987 to 1996 has shown me both the possibilities and the pitfalls of research. My association with the institute began in its early years. Since then, I have watched with great pride as it has become one of the country's leading research institutes. Its accomplishments under the direction of Professor Fiona Stanley are numerous. Just this month the institute, collaborating with the Melbourne based Walter and Eliza Hall Institute for Medical Research, was part of another world first. Jointly they identified a genetic trigger that explains why some children develop severe asthma.But the fanfare for a successful research project hides the years of sweat, toil and disappointment that preceded the celebration. Overwhelmingly, Australian scientists and scientists around the world have expressed a realistic optimism about the benefits of embryonic stem cell research. While the benefits will not be immediate and there are still many obstacles, this bill opens the door to the possibility of making someone's life better, returning some dignity to fellow humans and delivering the potential to avoid suffering to our children and grandchildren.Why then should we close the door on this bill? There are three main themes in the arguments of those opposed to this bill: first, embryonic stem cell research is not necessary; second, embryonic stem cell research is not ethical; and, third, embryonic stem cell research is dangerous and leads us down a slippery slope. I propose to address those arguments in turn but, in doing so, I stress that I accept that for many members in this place those arguments are based on firmly held or passionate beliefs. In challenging those arguments, I do not seek to devalue those beliefs but to explain why I take a different view in the context of this bill. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that it is not necessary because adult stem cells offer similar benefits without the need to exploit an embryo. While I am no expert in matters scientific, the literature I have seen and the advice I have taken on this issue suggest that it is not as simple as that. Adult stem cell research does, indeed, offer some hope of medical breakthroughs in some fields. That research should continue and be complementary to embryonic stem cell research. The versatility and abundance of stem cells gradually decrease with age. While embryonic stem cells are able to produce any of the over 200 different types of specialised cells that make up the human body, adult stem cells do not appear to have the same capacity to differentiate into as many different cell types. They are limited by a restricted domain.Dr David Izon, a researcher with the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, informs me that adult stem cells show much promise but, in comparison with embryonic stem cells, they are, at present, a distant second. This, he advises, is because the mechanisms underlying adult stem cell transdifferentiation are completely unknown. For embryonic stem cells, it is a much more well-characterised system. Embryonic stem cells are more flexible and more useful for research purposes.One of the key researchers of adult stem cells, Dr Catherine Verfaille, from the University of Minnesota, whose results have been relied upon by many opponents of the bill, has implored that her work should in no way be used as an argument for the cessation of embryonic stem cell research. Rather, she says, it should be used in conjunction with it. Both embryonic and adult stem cells should be studied together to maximise the clinical benefits for patients. The existence of another field of stem cell research which, at this stage, is showing narrower potential is not a reason to shut the door on a very promising field of medical science absent some other compelling reason to do so. The question then arises as to whether there are any other compelling reasons to prevent this research.This bill allows research on embryos which are left over from in-vitro fertilisation procedures and which would otherwise be destroyed. It does so subject to certain conditions. The bill does not permit the creation of embryos for research. The bill, as we know, bans human cloning. The bill takes the position that, where there is a choice between putting existing excess embryos to waste or putting them to use for the ease of human suffering, we should allow them to be put to use. The embryos from which stem cells are taken are about one-week-old and consist of a ball of about 100 cells measuring less than one-seventh of a millimetre. Under current legislation and under this bill, these clusters of cells will never become persons. They will be destroyed by being thawed and left on the bench to succumb.I make no comment on whether those cells are a life. Indeed, whatever position you take on whether these cells are a life, I cannot see a compelling moral argument for not allowing already existing embryos that would otherwise face destruction to be used for research in a safe, limited and regulated manner. In my view, it is entirely consistent with respect for human life and it is entirely consistent with respect for human dignity.Opponents of the bill have asked this parliament to look further than this bill to what they argue are the dangers inherent in allowing this kind of research. They question whether it may lead to embryo farms and the exploitation and creation of human clones. They caution us to beware the slippery slope. To those arguments I say two things: first, this bill is extremely careful of the slippery slope—in fact, it treads a cautious path through an obstacle course, rather than sliding down a slippery slope; and, second, I ask those concerned about the slippery slope to have faith in this forum to meet their fears.I am satisfied that this bill provides adequate safeguards to allay concerns about the slippery slope. Before going into the detail of the bill itself, however, I want to make one point. The mere act of legislating in this area is an act of leadership and caution. It is an exercise of legislative will not to merely allow research to run its own course. It is a protection against the slippery slope. We cannot believe that, by banning embryonic stem cell research in Australia, we will be preventing it elsewhere in the world. It is far better for us here today to resolve that we will move cautiously and carefully into the future, supervising what is to take place, reporting back to this House—the house of the people—and ensuring that many of the fears opponents have articulated do not come to fruition.It is far better that we allow our scientists to engage in this research in an environment which requires them to be responsible and accountable, rather than abandon that task to scientists elsewhere. If we ban this research here and now it will still go on, outside the gaze of this parliament as well as outside our nation. The services may only be available to the rich rather than accessible to all in need. The consequences of it going wrong would be far greater, and we would be far less able to control them. By taking the initiative and legislating, we are able to set the goalposts and place controls. The cautious mechanisms in this bill include creating new offences to deal with human cloning. The second part of the bill contains clear statements about what society will not tolerate. This includes the creation of a human embryo clone, the import or export of such a clone and the placement of such a clone in a human or animal. Hybrid and chimerical practices of incorporating an animal cell into a human embryo or cross-fertilisation of animals and humans are also banned. The legislation also says no to commercial trading of human eggs, sperm or embryos.Part 3 of the bill regulates the use of human embryos. Apart from embryos used in the course of routine ART clinical practice, only excess embryos can be used. The woman and any spouse must provide authority that the embryo is excess to her needs. The legislation will then apply to that excess embryo, allowing only `exempt uses' or uses under a licensing scheme established by the legislation. Uses beyond the exempt uses, such as research and stem cell derivation, are only permitted under the extensive licensing scheme. This requires getting a proposal through a human research ethics committee and proceeding to submit a licence application to the National Health and Medical Research Council Licensing Committee. That committee is made up of experts from all relevant fields, including regulation and ethics, chosen after a period of consultation with the states, industry and community organisations. The committee itself is governed by detailed procedures under the act.Before granting a licence, the committee must be satisfied about a range of things, including appropriate protocols being in place to enable proper consent to be obtained. In granting a licence, the committee must have regard to the number of excess ART embryos required, the likelihood of significant advance in knowledge and any relevant guidelines issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Licences are granted on condition that proper consent has been obtained, that uses will be in accordance with any restrictions placed on the embryos by the donors and that only embryos created before 5 April 2002 will be used if they might be damaged or destroyed. Additional conditions are possible too, including conditions on which people can use the embryos, the number of excess embryos that may be used and reporting and monitoring requirements. Information about licences will be publicly available on an accessible database, allowing this research to proceed in the public arena. People with licences are subject to a strict inspection, monitoring and reporting regime.Finally, the bill contains some important safeguards that relate to a reconsideration of the bill itself. The bill provides for a review of the act after two years. The review will be independent and must take into account developments in technology and community standards. This reflects an issue of fundamental importance contained within this piece of legislation and surrounding its debate; that is, a trust in this parliament to get it right—to get it right for Australians counting on medical advances, to get it right for our best and brightest scientists and to get it right by treating the community and the views it holds about this issue with respect. This is the greatest argument against the slippery slope fears.As this very debate has demonstrated, our current parliamentary processes, as well as the safeguards in the legislation, will ensure that developments in biotechnology are closely regulated and monitored by the government, representing Australians. Even taking the very small steps that this bill permits has involved immense consultation, education, parliamentary committee recommendations and national cooperation, as well as the usual mechanisms of parliamentary scrutiny. With the safeguards contained in this bill and the proud traditions of parliamentary democracy in this country, I am confident that this bill is a small and cautious step that offers some hope and the right measure of caution. I commend the bill to the House.18:25:006104Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 in this important debate on human cloning and stem cell research, having spent much of the past few years, along with some other members—including the member for Curtin, who is here in the chamber—investigating these matters. In August 1999, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which I then chaired, was asked by the then Minister for Health and Aged Care to inquire into aspects of human cloning and stem cell research. I was subsequently given responsibility for cloning by the Prime Minister as part of my ministerial duties within the Health and Ageing portfolio.May I state at the outset that I welcome the tone of the debate established by the Prime Minister. Contrary to some views that have been expressed in the media and with only a few regrettable exceptions, members have discussed this issue with sensitivity and without political point-scoring or personal rancour. In concluding this debate, may I thank all members who have participated for their contributions. I am informed by the Clerk that in fact 105 members of the House have participated in this debate.There is also substantial interest in this matter in the community. The government has received more than 12,000 items of correspondence, 70 per cent of which, I must note, opposes cloning and stem cell research. The parliamentary committee's report, Human cloning: scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning and stem cell research formed the basis of discussion at the Council of Australian Governments meeting leading to this bill. For two years the parliamentary committee pored over the issue, listening to scientists, ethicists and regulators as well as members of the general public and attempted to come to terms with not only the rapidly developing field of scientific work but also the ethical issues involved in it. At the core of the committee's deliberations was the question: is there any benefit in conducting stem cell research or in the application of cloning technologies to human beings? If there is, what use of these techniques is permissible to achieve these benefits? At the heart of these questions is whether it is ethical to conduct research involving the destruction of human embryos and, if so, to what degree. At the conclusion of our deliberations there was one central issue upon which we could not agree, despite months of careful, thoughtful and constructive discussion. That issue was the appropriateness of harvesting stem cells from excess IVF embryos for research, destroying the embryos in the process. It is little wonder, then, that this issue is at the forefront of the debate on this bill. Just as it was important to ensure that the committee's report enabled each member to accurately present his or her own position without intimidation or pressure from others, it is equally important that members have had the same opportunity in this debate.Because of the seriousness of this matter and the far-reaching implications, for the reasons that I will outline I believe that there should be a moratorium on the use of excess IVF embryos. Stem cell research raises a series of ethical, scientific and regulatory considerations, the first of which is ethical. Each of us comes to this place with views shaped by experiences and learning. Those views are then subject to ongoing discussions and deliberations. I bring to the ethical considerations of this matter two principles: the first of doing no harm to another and the second of not treating another human being as a commodity. The principle of doing no harm to another is not a recent invention. Traditional Western ethic had its cornerstone in the classical Greek thinking founded by Hippocrates. Prior to Hippocrates, the physician was the shaman. The patient never knew what his fate would be when the so-called `doctor' arrived. The physician had the authority to decide whose life was worth living and whose was not; thus the physician became the most dangerous as well as the most important person in society.This central tradition limits the role of the physician to that of healer and comforter, and strictly forbids him or her to be destructive. `Do no harm' underpinned the prohibition of some ugly practices which were then common. The fact that this principle has survived for 2,500 years of Western medical and scientific practice suggests to me that it is the bedrock upon which medical science is founded. Indeed, it has been restated in various declarations over the past 50 years, beginning with the 1948 Declaration of Geneva. This enlightened tradition has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. I believe that we should not depart from it. I believe that it is dangerous to treat any human life as expendable. The proponents of embryonic stem cell experimentation often like to paint their opponents as having a religious view, but concern about destructive research is shared by many people of religious belief and none. Guy Rundle, editor of the left magazine Arena, writes:As human life becomes increasingly abstracted, commodified, manipulable and dehumanised, a wider sense of foreboding spreads.Another non-religious critic, Kate Cregan, observes:I am concerned with what these technologies do to us socially, how they contribute to normalising the idea that we are reducible to the sum of our interchangeable, abstracted, constitutive parts.What is most alarming about this debate is the insistence that it is ethically proper to destroy embryos no longer wanted for IVF because they may be allowed to thaw and die. This calculus, between letting die and allowing destructive research, is a false choice. How can one questionable practice—that is, creating tens of thousands of excess embryos—be the reason for allowing another questionable practice, destroying them for some alleged potential benefit? In the words of the old adage, two wrongs do not make a right. We should be asking why there are 70,000 embryos in frozen storage, the product of IVF procedures which, despite all the warm publicity, still fail the great majority of participants. Having commodified the child, we are now told that we should objectify life itself, turning us all into potential spare parts. As Kate Cregan writes:You get caught pitting one set of competing liberal rights against another, and like a good utilitarian weighing an apportioning worth to desires, totting up ethereal happiness factors in an abstract equation that flattens out any social or cultural content in what is involved.In applying these principles, I retain considerable misgivings about allowing destructive use of excess IVF embryos. I recognise, however, that other members do not necessarily share the same misgivings, although I note from the debate that many, including many of those who would approve the bill, retain some concerns about the extent to which we should breach these principles. Even when others approach this issue from a different ethical framework, I suggest that there are other reasons for caution about aspects of the bill and reasons why, as I suggested, there should be a moratorium on the use of excess embryos. First, the scientific case to justify the deliberate destruction of embryos is very weak. Throughout this debate, and indeed in the evidence before the parliamentary committee, the use of embryos has been argued on the basis of their potential benefit in the discovery of cures for a range of human diseases. Scientists have been using mice embryonic stem cells for decades, and human embryonic stem cells for a number of years, but all they can point to is the potential benefits. Therapies using embryonic stem cells have cured no-one. To the contrary, they have demonstrated two worrying properties in experiments to date. The first is the significant predisposition to become malignant. As an editorial in the scientific journal Stem Cells stated: ... prior to clinical use of embryonic and foetal stem cells, it will be necessary to thoroughly investigate the malignant potential of embryonic stem cells.Secondly, the potential use of embryonic stem cells is severely limited by tissue rejection. These problems, I believe, should be addressed with the thousands of existing stem cells before more embryos are destroyed. By contrast, I am informed that research involving adult stem cells is already producing cures. Bone marrow stem cells have been used to regenerate heart tissue. Brain stem cells have been used to treat Parkinson's disease. Multiple sclerosis has been stabilised in patients using adult stem cells. Spinal cord damage has been repaired using blood stem cells. Adult cells have been used to restore vision. Sickle cell blood disease has been treated with adult stem cells. Placental stem cells have been used to restore immune systems destroyed by cancer, and diabetes sufferers have had their condition improved using adult stem cells. The successful use of adult stem cells goes on and on. Recently, the so-called bubble boy was restored to health with gene therapy using adult stem cells.A survey of the science reveals that the claims for embryonic stem cells remain just that, claims, whereas adult stem cells are producing results every day. Never has so much overblown hype been used to promote something that has produced so little. Indeed, it is ironic that the rigour usually associated with science seems to have been dispensed with by many of those advocating the use of embryonic stem cells. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to ask scientists to provide evidence of success with existing stem cell lines before any further embryos are destroyed. There are currently thousands, if not tens of thousands, of embryonic stem cells available for research. Indeed, scientists keep telling us that they can be replicated forever. Then let us see some real results before we agree to destroy more embryos. The case for the use of embryos is built on shifting sands. Scientists like Alan Trounson have continually changed the goalposts to suit their case. Let me illustrate. In his submission to the parliamentary committee inquiring into cloning and stem cell research, Dr Trounson stated:If we want to derive four new lines of embryonic stem cells we would theoretically use eight embryos and we would not really want to use any more ever again. We would have enough cells there to supply all the research institutes in Australia and probably world-wide ...This was reinforced months later when Dr Robert Klupacs, CEO of Dr Trounson's company, ES Cell International, told the committee:Our position is that we do not think we will ever have to go back to derive another embryonic stem cell line.Dr Trounson reinforced his statement on ABC radio:Mind you, I think we may never actually use another embryo again for the work. Because the cells that we currently have are immortal. They grow, actually, forever in the laboratory. So we probably have enough for all the research we need to do, for the present time, worldwide, here in the laboratory. Here in Melbourne.In August 2001, President Bush announced that the United States federal funding would only apply to existing stem cell lines. Almost overnight, the public face of embryonic stem cell science morphed. Current embryonic stem cell colonies were apparently no longer genetically diverse and new embryos were needed. Before the Bush announcement, embryonic stem cell critics raised the possibility of pathogens transmitting from the irradiated mouse feeder cells that nurtured the stem cell colonies, only to be rebuffed by the US Food and Drug Administration. But soon after President Bush had drawn a line for federal funding, mouse feeder cells became scientifically unsafe. Having moved from existing stem cell lines to the possible use of excess embryos, the scientific need has been pushed further. As soon as it was suggested by the Council of Australian Governments that it would restrict stem cell research to existing excess embryos, scientists insisted that specially creating embryos for destructive research should not be prohibited. Last December, Dr Trounson was quoted as saying how expensive and impractical therapeutic cloning would be because one needs massive numbers of eggs for such a program. But when it was announced in March that Chinese researchers had successfully cloned embryos to the point where stem cells could be extracted, and had applied for patents, Dr Trounson was reported as saying that he `absolutely and unreservedly' supports it being carried out here. More recently, the same Alan Trounson has said that there is no need for so-called therapeutic human cloning. Yet I received in the mail this week this newsletter from Dr Trounson's centre, promoting the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer—the technical description for therapeutic cloning. This brief survey suggests that the goalposts are continually being shifted by the reproductive technologists, always with the effect of pushing the regulatory parameters further and further out. Now we learn that Dr Trounson has been peddling a lie about the magical cure of a rat to support his case. When questioned by a number of people, Dr Trounson insisted that the rat had recovered mobility through the use of embryonic stem cells, yet the research paper that he referred to and said that he had read clearly indicates that the study involved adult stem cells. And at that very time during the same presentation Dr Trounson called for scientific integrity! Is this parliament going to enact legislation based on hype, gross exaggeration and lies?This raises the basis upon which we make public policy. Many in this debate have referred to personal experiences and to the suffering of people they know or have known. This is an admirable position, but the tug of emotions should not be the basis for public policy. Like others, I have the experience of family and friends who have suffered debilitating illness. All of us wish to overcome such conditions, but sentiment is hardly the basis for good public policy. Indeed, in all other areas of policy we ask rational questions and seek to understand the desired outcomes as well as the unintended consequences of any decision.I would suggest that all reasonable scientific evidence is to urge caution about the time frame for any results. The very fact that there are more than 70,000 `spare' embryos undermines the distinction between `spare' and `specially created' embryos. As the head of IVF Sydney, Dr Robert Jansen, told a previous parliamentary inquiry:It is a fallacy to distinguish between surplus embryos and specially created embryos in terms of embryo research—any intelligent administrator of an IVF program can, by minor changes in his ordinary clinical way of going about things, change the number of embryos that are fertilised.Many members have said in this debate that they would not allow any further use of embryos, yet the bill already allows for a range of uses beyond research into the treatment of sick human beings. Toxicology studies on live human embryos and the testing of new drugs on humans rather than on animals will be permissible under this legislation. Indeed, the financial incentives driving stem cell research are not just about finding cures for diseases such as Parkinson's but about providing a new human medium for the testing and development of pharmaceutical products. For all these reasons, I believe that we should insert a two-year moratorium on the further use of IVF embryos into this bill, together with a review clause. Such a moratorium is what the President's Council on Bioethics has proposed for the United States of America.In any event, the bill before the parliament should be amended as it contains some flaws. I will illustrate just one deficiency in the bill. A clause of the bill allows scientists to undertake diagnostic procedures on an embryo, without a licence. As the executive of the Australian Health Ethics Committee—the federal government's own advisory body on bioethics—has indicated, this clause creates a loophole for extensive unregulated destructive embryo research. It would take very little skill to construct a series of diagnostic procedures that would constitute a research program completely outside the scope of the bill as it is drafted. Indeed, while this clause exists, I believe the claim that the bill regulates the use of excess IVF embryos is flawed.At stake in this debate is the very dignity that we attach to individuals. We should not undermine it casually; nor should this parliament pass far-reaching legislation based on unsubstantiated hype and, in some cases, outright lies. I support ethically and scientifically proven research using adult stem cells. I also oppose, as I think all members do, human cloning. But I do not believe a case has been made out for destroying more embryos, even on scientific grounds. I therefore urge members and, subsequently, senators to support the moratorium.10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—As there are no more speakers, in accordance with the resolution of the House the bill will be returned to the House.Main Committee adjourned at 6.46 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing6109The following answers to questions were circulated:6109(Question No. 325)3256109McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 May 2002:What sum has the Government spent on its campaign which commenced on 5 March 2000 to advertise the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's Country of Origin Guidelines.6109Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:BackgroundIn July 1998, the then Department of Industry, Science & Resources (DISR) provided the Commission with $160,000 to mount an information and awareness program on the new country of origin provisions in the Trade Practices Act. In November 1998 the Commission sought and obtained a further $250,000 for an extended program to include:Publications including specific industry guides;Promotional activities (seminars, speaking engagements - including travel, venue hire, advertising, mail-outs etc.);Internet presence - interactive Q&A;Legal advice and enforcement action.6109(Question No. 410)4106109Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 May 2002:(1) Given the recent announcements of bank branch closures, what assessments has he or his Department made in relation to the funding of Rural Transaction Centres (RTC's) in localities that are losing banking services.(2) If assessments have been made, what is the financial impact on the Commonwealth of these closures.(3) Is the Government supportive of RTC's as an alternative to face to face banking services from banks.6109Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) General assessments of rural community needs for financial services, including the needs of communities that have lost access to financial services, are undertaken through the Department of Transport and Regional Services. Such assessments are not done in the Department of the Treasury.(2) Refer to (1)(3) The Government believes that RTCs can provide appropriate and effective banking services to communities that may have no other type of face-to-face banking. RTCs can provide cost effective infrastructure for a financial institution in a community where a stand-alone financial institution would not be financially viable. The Program Guidelines however specify that Program funds will not be used to establish a service that will operate in competition with or to the detriment of existing services in communities. Consequently RTC Program funds are unlikely to be provided for the establishment of a new face-to-face financial service following the closure of a bank branch or agency, if there are similar banking services currently available in that community.