2002-09-254013REPS716302002-09-25—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills7163R16477163Bill presented by Mr Tuckey, and read a first time.716309:31:007163Tuckey, 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 two acts to ensure a sustainable basis for liability for third party damage on the ground and the provision of aviation war risk (including terrorism and hijacking) insurance in response to the post 11 September withdrawal of this cover by the commercial market. The amendment to the Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 ensures that passive owners (such as lessors and financiers) are exempted from third party liability to damage on the ground. The amendments to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 will allow for the exemption, by regulation, of third party aviation war risk insurance from the cancellation and variation provisions of the act. We are also taking the opportunity to correct a minor technical error in the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 to ensure foreign charter operators are excluded from certain liabilities under the act.The Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 imposes strict and unlimited liability on both the owner and operator of an aircraft, who are jointly and severally liable. The act ensures that an innocent person (or that person's family) is properly compensated if an aircraft, or part of an aircraft, causes death or injury to the person or damage to their property on the ground. As a result of the 11 September attacks, aircraft lessors and financiers have expressed their dissatisfaction with this liability rule, arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent with other sectors of the economy and the law in other countries. The amendment exempts passive owners from liability for damage to third parties on the ground.Following the 11 September terrorist events, aviation third party war risk insurance was withdrawn from the global market—an unprecedented event. Some insurance has since returned, but major Australian airports and other Australian based aviation service providers have been unable to purchase sufficient war risk insurance.While domestic insurers can cover smaller insurance placements, the market for aviation insurance is principally offshore, reflecting the fact that only a global market provides the critical mass for this line of specialised insurance. The provisions of sections 53 and 63 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 prevent the variation and cancellation of existing insurance policies. It is standard industry practice for war and terrorism risk contracts to have seven-day or 30-day cancellation provisions in case some catastrophic event occurs, as losses arising from terrorism can be extremely large. Consequently, international insurers are refusing to insure Australian based aviation companies. The proposed amendment will address this problem by enabling cover for war and terrorism risks to be excluded from sections 53 and 63 where prescribed by regulation. Other aspects of protection provided to the aviation industry will remain.Finally, the bill makes amendment to the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 to correct an inadvertent error which imposed a liability on foreign charter operators, which is inconsistent with Australia's international obligations under the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air, Warsaw 1929 (the Warsaw Convention). The correction ensures that Australia imposes certain liabilities only upon Australian airlines, not foreign charter operators.I should note that the world aviation community, through the International Civil Aviation Organisation, has proposed a new international liability regime to consolidate and reform the Warsaw Convention. Australia is currently well advanced on a process that is expected to lead to the ratification of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Montreal 1999 (the Montreal Convention). There is nothing in these amendments that would be inconsistent with eventual ratification of the Montreal Convention by Australia. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Miscellaneous716409:37:007164Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I move:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice of motion No. 28, private members' business submitted by the member for Paterson on 26 August 2002, to be brought on for debate forthwith.The motion submitted by the member for Paterson is a stunt designed to provide cover for his broken election promises. The roadworks he refers to in his motion would now be complete if it were not for the budget cuts of the Howard government. So I say, let's bring the motion on and have it debated in this House this morning. As the member for Paterson knows, I travelled to the intersection of Weakleys Drive and the New England Highway in 1995 with the then minister for roads, Laurie Brereton, to announce that the roadworks referred to in the member for Paterson's motion would be complete.Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (9.38 a.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put:09:42:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 70Anderson, J.D.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.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.59Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Katter, R.C.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.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.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.09:48:007165Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—The member for Paterson is two-faced. He says one thing to the people of Paterson and does stuff all for them in Canberra.Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (9.48 a.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put:09:50:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 70Anderson, J.D.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.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.60Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Katter, R.C.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Fitzgibbon's) be agreed to.09:52:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 60Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Katter, R.C.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.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.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.71Anderson, J.D.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Question negatived.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Before I invite members to resume their seats, it would seem an opportune time to indicate that, as I imagine we are about to move to order of the day No. 1, the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002, it is my intention, should there be any divisions on that bill, to appoint multiple tellers if necessary to facilitate the count as the standing orders provide. This is the result of a suggestion by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, for which I thank him.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—He knows the standing orders!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! There are a number of people, it seems to me, who are very unfamiliar with the standing orders— and I have discussed the matter with the whips.Bills7166R16257166Consideration resumed from 24 September.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The question before the House is that Mr Pyne's amendment (2) to clause 56 be agreed to.10:00:007166Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Mr Speaker, I appreciate the indication you gave to the House about the appointment of multiple tellers. Last night when we completed this debate and the Attorney-General adjourned it to today, we were discussing the amendment that I have moved to section 56 of the bill which deals with the concurrence or otherwise of state legislation. I had said that I was going to outline to the House, at my next opportunity, the pieces of state legislation that we are talking about. I would remind the House that the force of section 56 of this bill is to flatten the state regimes and establish a national regime. I would also remind the House that my contention is that the COAG agreement provided for a continuation of state regimes as long as those regimes were not less restrictive than the Commonwealth regime being proposed. That is reflected in the bill itself in section 56 but not in the explanatory memorandum, which goes much further than the clause of the bill and, I would contend, the COAG agreement.In South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria, there is legislation dealing with the area we are debating today dating from 1998, 1991 and 1995. The relevant section in the South Australian act—called the Reproductive Technology Act 1988—in clause 14(2)(a) provides that to do experiments on human reproductive material you need a licence and that the licence will be subject to:... a condition prohibiting research that may be detrimental to an embryoEven with that very restrictive definition, under the South Australian Reproductive Technology Act of 1988, South Australia has been able to conduct worldbreaking IVF ART programs at the Wakefield Hospital, at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and elsewhere and has assisted thousands of South Australian couples to have children. In Western Australia, the act is the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991 and in clause 14(2) of that act it says that the Western Australian Reproductive Technology Council, which grants all manner of licences:... shall not grant approval to any research being conducted, or any diagnostic procedure to be carried out, upon or with an egg in the process of fertilisation, or any embryo, unless the council is satisfied—(a) that the proposed research or procedure is intended to be therapeutic for that egg or embryo; and(b) the existing scientific and medical knowledge indicates that no detrimental effect on the well-being of any egg in the process of fertilisation or any embryo is likely thereby to occur.So that definition is also restrictive of embryonic research. Yet even within those confines, the Western Australian medical profession and scientific community have had no hindrance to reproductive technology procedures. Similarly, South Australia has helped thousands of couples to achieve children for those people who wish to do so. In Victoria, the Victorian government has an Infertility Treatment Act 1995. In clause 24, the ban on destructive research on embryos says:A person must not carry out research, outside the body of a woman, involving the use of an embryo—(a) if the embryo is unfit for transfer to a woman; or(b) in the case of an embryo which is fit for transfer to a woman, if the research would—(i) harm the embryo; or(ii) make the embryo unfit for transfer to a woman; or(iii) reduce the likelihood of a pregnancy resulting from the transfer of the embryo.The Victorian legislation is the most restrictive of the three regimes. But it is under Victorian legislation in fact—at the Monash Stem Cell Institute—that Professor Alan Trounson has conducted his groundbreaking IVF programs. Even with this very restrictive legislation, all that research and assistance to couples has gone on in Melbourne without hindrance. I contend that those three pieces of legislation, being more restrictive than the Commonwealth legislation, should be allowed to stand as they can operate concurrently with the Commonwealth act. (Time expired)10:05:007167Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—In regard to the amendments proposed to section 56, the proposal put forward by my colleague reflects, I believe, the COAG decision. Our problem with it is that the wording in the legislation and the wording of the explanatory memorandum seem to be inconsistent. The explanatory memorandum seems to open up the prospect for a different interpretation to that which I accepted was the intention of the premiers and the Prime Minister, that is, that Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, which are the only states in Australia that currently have laws in regard to these matters, have a restrictive regime about the use of embryos. Despite a lot of encouragement to have New South Wales adopt similar legislation over a number of years, they have failed to do so. So New South Wales is not covered by legislation. The Commonwealth legislation will be the first control or management of this area and it is by this clause that that comes into place. It is very important for the states of New South Wales and Queensland to ensure that the Commonwealth legislation acts as a basis. The Council of Australian Governments communique of 5 April states:The regulation restricting the use of embryos created after 5 April 2002 will cease to have effect in three years, unless an earlier time is agreed by the Council. The Council also agreed to establish an Ethics Committee ... to report to the Council within 12 months on protocols .. The Council also agreed to request the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to report within 12 months on the adequacy of supply and distribution ...Within the framework of re-examination, one can only assume that there is no wish to remove the legislation currently in place in Victoria and New South Wales, although I see reports that the Victorian Premier is prepared to legislate.The purpose of this paragraph and the changes proposed by my colleague are purely to make sure that the laws of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia remain unchanged. That is a matter for those states. We believe that they have fairly and rightly established a regime for IVF and for research on embryos and that it was not the intention of COAG to interfere with that process. However, the explanatory memorandum seems to indicate that it does not matter what sort of minimum regime or restrictive regime it is as long as it is not in conflict. The impact of that is that, if it is a more restrictive regime, it will be removed by Commonwealth law. So the decision of those states to have a more restrictive regime is not a matter that is going back to the people or the parliaments of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia; it is going to be changed by Commonwealth law overriding it. That, I believe, has been a matter of conscience in those states. My colleague the member for Sturt has moved an amendment that clearly says this in relation to the operation of state laws:Nothing in this Act is to be taken to affect the operation of any law of a State that prohibits absolutely the use of excess ART embryos, or that imposes additional conditions, whether consistent or inconsistent with this Act, on the use of such embryos.All he is saying is that, if there is a more restrictive regime operating currently in a state, as there is in those three states, then that should remain in place if the states wish it to. The Attorney argued last night that we need to have a nationally consistent framework. In this matter of conscience, he is saying that it shall not be a matter of conscience for those three states. (Time expired)10:10:007168Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I support the contributions made by the members for Sturt and Mitchell with respect to the proposed amendment to section 56 of the bill. In a federation it is appropriate to recognise that in different parts of the country there are at times different values and attitudes, and this is one of the reasons why we do not have in Australia a unitary system of government. We have a division of powers under the Australian Constitution and matters which are best dealt with at the state level are handled by the parliaments of the several states.I have a concern with the provisions of section 56 of the bill insofar as it would prevent states from making laws which are inconsistent with the particular provisions of this bill. Even if the state governments of the various states at the present time are of the same opinion as the proponents of this bill, in the fullness of time it could be that state governments change the attitudes of the people of the various states of Australia. In that circumstance, it really ought to be open to any individual state government to bring in laws which are more in keeping with the values and wishes of people of the particular state. The proposed amendment to section 56 reads:Nothing in this Act is to be taken to affect the operation of any law of a State that prohibits absolutely the use of excess ART embryos, or that imposes additional conditions, whether consistent or inconsistent with this Act, on the use of such embryos.This really is an appropriate amendment to section 56. It does preserve essentially what is the compact of federation, it does devolve the right for decision-making in this area to the parliaments of the individual states and also it does bring a sense of accountability insofar as the individual state governments of Australia from time to time will have to make sure that their attitudes and their laws are in keeping with the attitudes of the constituencies they purport to represent. This amendment is particularly appropriate: it means that the individual state governments would from time to time be able to make individual decisions to reflect the attitudes of the people of the various states. That, in my view, is the essence of democracy. I commend this amendment to the chamber.10:13:007169Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—In my earlier contribution I was dealing with the issue of the states having a more restrictive regime. I would like to comment on a couple of comments made in the debate last night by both the Attorney-General and the member for Perth because I think they go directly to the amendment that I have moved. Dealing first with the member for Perth, one of the things that he said was that the Commonwealth legislation was being drafted with the cooperation of the states and that the state governments who were supporting the Commonwealth legislation did not want their own piece of legislation anymore and were happy to have a national regime. That is all very well for the current state governments in South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria, but when those pieces of legislation were passed by those parliaments, they were obviously supported by governments that thought this was (1) good for good governance and (2) wanted by the public. If the states do not want that legislation anymore, it is their responsibility to change it—it is their responsibility to deal with their own issues. Why should the Commonwealth make their lives easier by overriding state legislation under a national regime?You could also ask why Queensland, Tasmania and New South Wales should be helped out of their current dearth of any legislation in this area at all just because the premiers of those states do not want to bite the bullet on this particular issue. Clearly, Premier Beattie and Premier Carr would much prefer this debate, this controversy and the division that this bill has caused to happen at the Commonwealth level where the impact on them is negligible than to happen in their own Labor Party caucuses in Brisbane and Sydney.But why should the Commonwealth accept that position? Why should we allow ourselves to be the ones who are required to deal with this issue just because the states do not want to repeal their own pieces of legislation because they are too cowardly to take on this issue? Why should we assist New South Wales and Queensland to deal with an issue which they are not prepared to take on because they are frightened to do so? It is an absurdity. The Commonwealth should do the things that the Commonwealth thinks are right but it should not respond to the Labor states and territories who are not prepared to deal with tough issues because they know they will split their own caucuses.The Attorney-General suggested that under my amendment I would be suggesting that state laws could override the Commonwealth law in this area if the states had a more restrictive regime. I do not have the least bit of a problem with that. The head of power in this area is with the states. That is why there is state legislation in place in South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia—because the head of power under our Constitution lies with the states in this area. The states are referring power to the Commonwealth. But the states do not have to refer all the power in a particular area to the Commonwealth. If they wish to, they can quite happily have their own regimes. Under this legislation they could have them under my amendment as long as they were not inconsistent with the Commonwealth by diluting the Commonwealth's regime rather than making it more restrictive. The Attorney-General suggests that it is an extraordinary proposition to allow state laws to override the Commonwealth when the power is actually a state head of power. I do not understand that argument. He might want to elaborate on that if he intends to speak again.In relation to that, I would also say that that very problem was obviously considered by COAG. From my understanding, the COAG agreement countenanced the possibility of regimes at the state level that were more restrictive than at the Commonwealth level. Obviously they had countenanced the possibility of the referral of power to the Commonwealth by the states but with the states maintaining some control in the event that they wished to have more restrictive regimes.I ask my colleagues to seriously consider the possibility of allowing states to maintain their pieces of legislation. If they do not wish to do so, it should be up to them to change legislation, not the Commonwealth.10:18:007170Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I want to respond to the assertion of the member for Sturt both last night and this morning that the Council of Australian Governments communique indicates that state law should override Commonwealth law where the state law is more restrictive. This is not the case. The COAG communique makes it quite clear that a nationally consistent approach to regulation of research involving embryos is required. COAG agreed that research involving the destruction of existing excess ART embryos could be permitted under a strict regulatory regime to enable Australia to remain at the forefront of research which may lead to medical breakthroughs in the treatment of disease. The amendment moved by the member for Sturt would be inconsistent with the COAG agreement. The COAG communique states:Research involving human embryos should be regulated through nationally-consistent legislation. The communique also states the following as one of the principles that should underpin nationally consistent legislation:... these national standards should be applied consistently throughout Australia, recognising that jurisdictions may use different mechanisms to establish that proposals comply with the national standards ...Appendix 1 to the communique states:Governments agree to put in place a strict regulatory regime under nationally-consistent legislation and administered by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) as the national regulatory and licensing body.The member for Sturt has spoken of what is currently allowed in those states that have legislation that prohibits destructive research on embryos. However, it is my understanding that people in these states are obliged to travel to other states to receive treatment that may not be allowed under those regimes. It was the opinion of COAG that this uneven playing field is not satisfactory. COAG agreed that a nationally consistent approach to ART should be adopted, noting that compliance with NHMRC guidelines and RTAC accreditation are key requirements. South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia are currently in the process of amending their existing legislation so that it will mirror the Commonwealth legislation. Therefore, the states that currently have legislation in place to ban research on excess ART embryos will be lifting those bans, consistent with the Commonwealth legislation. Victoria has already introduced into its parliament a bill which mirrors the Commonwealth bill. I note that states will still be able to regulate the use of non-excess ART embryos as they see fit with a view to achieving national consistency.10:21:007170Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—In response to the Attorney, I would like to say that I do not have before me the information that he talks about. It is certainly not part of the statement issued by COAG and it is certainly not part of the appendix attached, which spells out in dot form what the intention of COAG should be. The only reference I can find in all of the COAG statements is one that would support the member for Sturt. I will use the totality of that sentence rather than the part the Attorney used. It says:... introduced nationally consistent legislation to ban human cloning and other unacceptable practices ...That is what the consistency was aimed at—to ban cloning. That is not in conflict with the laws of Victoria, South Australia or Western Australia as they now stand. That is the very point being made by the member forSturt: if those state laws are of that strength, then we have fulfilled that with the first piece of legislation passed through this House that bans cloning and unacceptable practices. That has been done and that is consistent with COAG.The area that we are looking at now is the use of embryos in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, and their legislation is far more restrictive than what is being proposed in this legislation. In fact, the Commonwealth legislation breaks down the laws of those states and seeks to destroy the intentions of the previous governments of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. I believe the laws of those states must reflect the moral and scientific attitudes of the people they represented at the time. To my knowledge this matter has not gone back to the people, or the parliaments have not been to the representatives of those states. I believe there are only three state governments whose previous intentions this Commonwealth law usurps. I believe that those state governments have research establishments which are interested in research on embryos, and they felt they had to have a legislative framework. They went ahead and, I think in a far-sighted manner, put down legislation that was appropriate for that time—unlike New South Wales and Queensland, both of which ignored the difficulties and hot water that researchers could get into by having no ethical, scientific or any other sort of framework. The states which did have a framework are now going to be crushed by this legislation. Premiers cannot make these sorts of decisions, and I think it is inappropriate. If the states were to make a decision to lessen the strength of their legislation and make it consistent with this legislation, that would be a matter for them. But the only words that I can see in the communique about this issue relate to the `nationally consistent legislation to ban cloning and other unacceptable practices'. That has been done. That legislation is in place, and it fulfils the intent of the communique and the practices in place now. I would have to see further persuasive material that is outside anything that is available to me to be persuaded that the Attorney-General's words reflect the intention of the Council of Australian Governments. They do not. I can deal only with the written words, and the written words say, as I have described, what the premiers wanted done. That has passed the House. The member for Sturt's proposal reflects, in my opinion, the views of the states. It allows states to continue their current laws and to be somewhat more restrictive than the Commonwealth laws, if they wish, and leaves it to those states to make changes after proper and due process with their parliaments and the people of those states.10:25:007171Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The member for Sturt's amendment goes to a narrow point. It is a very important point, but it is a narrow point. The argument which we have heard from more than half a dozen speakers on nearly a dozen occasions is simply this: the member for Sturt and supporters of his amendment say that there is nothing inconsistent with the COAG agreement in the member for Sturt's amendment. The Attorney-General and I disagree with that and say that the amendment would be inconsistent with the COAG communique, which is an agreement between all the states, the territories and the Commonwealth. Secondly, and more importantly, the Attorney-General and I both argue that the effect of the member for Sturt's amendment would be to undermine an essential part of the legislation before the House; namely, the essential desirability of ensuring that we have a national, consistent scheme. It is that point which the amendment moved by the member for Sturt seeks to undermine. That is a very simple point for the House to appreciate, and I think the House is starting to revolve around this particular issue more often and more regularly than it ought to. I think we have now got to the stage where the argument has been exhausted and we should now test that issue before the House.10:27:007171Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise to oppose, with respect, the amendment proposed by the member for Mitchell. At first glance, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that there is public accountability with respect to the substantive provisions of the bill as a whole; that is, the implementation of the licensing and use of human embryos for experimentation.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I understand that the member for Lowe feels very strongly about the matters he is debating, but I think he might well be debating the wrong amendment.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lowe is aware that we are dealing with clause 56 and the amendment moved by the member for Sturt. I will listen closely to what the member for Lowe is saying. He has followed this debate closely, but I would remind him that we are still dealing with clause 56 and the amendment moved by the member for Sturt. I have no reason to question what the member for Lowe has said, but I will listen closely to him.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—With respect, I apologise. Of course I am supporting the amendment that the member for Sturt moved in respect of clause 56. Unfortunately, I had to go up to the Main Committee. I have come in here very hurriedly and I thought we were dealing with the amendment of the member for Mitchell. I apologise to the House, and I will once again express my support for the member for Sturt's amendment.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I thank the member for Lowe. I had thought that he may have had a change of heart overnight; that is why I continued to hear him out.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Definitely not.10:29:007172Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I will speak very briefly. We have a situation in Australia's history where state governments have often not had the courage of their convictions and have not been prepared to take difficult decisions on behalf of the people of their states. Often the state governments, of various political colours, like to flick difficult decisions to the Commonwealth parliament. I believe that if the amendment moved by the member for Sturt is carried, it would force the state governments to ensure that the legislation on their statute books reflects the values and aspirations of the residents of each of their states in this area.Often I am disgusted at the way that state governments seek to negate and avoid their responsibilities to their own constituencies by sending difficult decisions off to the federal parliament. A number of state premiers see the clause as being one way to get them off the hook. It would be much better for democracy if individual states had the opportunity from time to time to make their own laws in relation to this very important part of public policy.10:30:007172Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Following on from the member for Mitchell's contribution, I have looked at clause 56 again. I would like to ask the Attorney-General a question about the position that he has put to the House, if he would be so kind as to speak again. Clause 56 says:This Act is not intended to exclude the operation of any law of a State, to the extent that the law of the State is capable of operating concurrently with this Act.I ask the Attorney-General: if a state had a piece of legislation that was more restrictive than the Commonwealth legislation, why could the legislation not operate concurrently with the act? If the state legislation were more liberal than the Commonwealth legislation, certainly it would then allow things that the Commonwealth disallowed, and as a consequence you would say it could not operate concurrently because it was allowing things that were not allowed and were, in fact, an offence under the Commonwealth legislation. But if the state wanted to add offences and more restrictions to the Commonwealth legislation, then I cannot see why that legislation could not operate concurrently. It may not be consistent with the Commonwealth legislation but it certainly could operate concurrently.I am confused between the wording used in clause 56 which requires concurrence and the wording used in the explanatory memorandum to clause 56, which says:One of the intended effects of this clause is that if a State has existing legislation that, for example, bans the use of excess ART embryos, such a law would not be capable of operating concurrently with the Act and as such it is intended that the Act override the State law to the extent that it is inconsistent.The explanatory memorandum does not go on to explain why that principle would pertain—why a more restrictive regime could not operate concurrently. I believe that the COAG agreement is accurately reflected in clause 56 but not in the explanatory memorandum and that the explanatory memorandum goes much further than COAG expected. I know that is the view of many of the people involved in the process and I would like the Attorney-General, if he would not mind, to enlighten me on the legal principles involved that would not allow a more restrictive regime to operate concurrently.10:33:007173Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I am going to be very brief because I think I have explained this at least twice. The provisions of clause 56 are intended to set up a nationally consistent regime dealing with the use of excess ART embryos. As the member for Sturt has pointed out, the explanatory memorandum to clause 56 provides:One of the intended effects of this clause is that if a State has existing legislation that, for example, bans the use of excess ART embryos, such a law would not be capable of operating concurrently with the Act and as such it is intended that the Act override the State law to the extent that it is inconsistent. If state legislation were more restrictive, it would be inconsistent because it would prevent the things that the Commonwealth legislation enables from being done. On that basis, it would be struck down by clause 56. But, if the member for Sturt's amendment were passed, it would not.10:34:007173Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I do not want to delay the House. I have a point of clarification, if the Attorney-General would be so kind. As I understand it, under the processes of law we usually try to ban stuff, to have laws in place that prevent things happening. The Attorney-General seems to be saying that, where a state has a more restrictive regime and bans things that they do not agree with, we are going to say, `You need a more liberal regime. You don't have a right to ban things that you don't agree with.' This seems to be a reversal of the normal processes of the law and would allow a more liberal regime to override something that is more restrictive. To me that is quite an unusual concept in the processes of enactment of legislation.Question put:That the amendment (Mr Pyne's) be agreed to.10:39:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 30Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Baldwin, R.C.Bartlett, K.J.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Draper, P.Forrest, J.A.Hawker, D.P.M.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Lloyd, J.E.McGauran, P.J.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.Panopoulos, S.Pyne, C.Quick, H.V. *Randall, D.J.Schultz, A.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N. *Ticehurst, K.V.Truss, W.E.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Windsor, A.H.C.93Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Bevis, A.R.Billson, B.F.Bishop, J.I.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A. *Downer, A.J.G.Dutton, P.C.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Elson, K.S.Emerson, C.A.Entsch, W.G.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gallus, C.A.Gash, J. *George, J.Georgiou, P.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Haase, B.W.Hall, J.G.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Johnson, M.A.Kemp, D.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.King, P.E.Latham, M.W.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Macklin, J.L.McArthur, S. *McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.O'Connor, B.P.O'Connor, G.M.Pearce, C.J.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Prosser, G.D.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Ruddock, P.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, A.D.H.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, K.J.Tollner, D.W.Tuckey, C.W.Vamvakinou, M.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Wilkie, K.Williams, D.R.Zahra, C.J.Question negatived.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The question now is that clause 56 be agreed to.Question agreed to.Clauses 57 to 59—by leave—taken together and agreed to.Clause 60.10:51:007174Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—This clause is the one that deals with the way the review of these decisions in the legislation takes place. Whilst I realise that this proposed amendment and the next one can be taken together, it is my wish to deal with them separately because members need to consider the way in which they would like the review to take place. It is possible to set a sunset provision for the review and then refer the review to the parliament. I would prefer to see the sunset provisions removed altogether and put the matter totally in the hands of the parliament so that the review can take place at any time proposed by the federal government or by this parliament. To me that seems a reasonable way of approaching a review of something of this substance.Clause 60, which is the one that we are dealing with, is the clause that says that COAG they wish it can at any time put this matter up and review the decision of the use of excess embryos prior to 5 April 2002. It seems to me that we go to the trouble of establishing the legislation and then we say that COAG can review it at any time they want. To me that decision concerning the use of excess embryos is a dereliction of our duty. We go to this trouble and then say that COAG can operate the thing in the way they want to. I draw the attention of the House to a matter which focuses my concerns. An article in the Financial Review of 10 August 2002 said:BresaGen CEO John Smeaton said that the COAG proposal was “OK for research but hasn't addressed the issues on the horizon as we move into therapeutic development”. He said frozen IVF embryos wouldn't meet their needs because they were mostly four- to six-cell embryos that would need to be cultured into the blastocyst stage to harvest stem cells. “That is not what we want to waste our time on,” Smeaton said.The article goes on to say:And Sydney IVF director Robert Jansen wants to do research on fresh IVF embryos.So the pressure is there—immediately stated—to have a review of these frozen embryos dated 5 April 2002. The proposal before the House is to take away the capacity of COAG to review this matter and to review the use of excess embryos created prior to 5 April 2002. It opens up for people beyond the control of this parliament to make a decision at a time that they choose to change the substance of this legislation which has restricted the use of excess embryos. I believe that the argument, the wish, the stated opinion, of some scientists—I would think probably more on the outer fringe of these processes—is there to want to use fresh embryos. Once the wish to use fresh embryos is established, you start to deal with specially created embryos for the purpose of research. That is real dicey stuff, in my opinion, and should not be countenanced by this parliament. It is not countenanced in what we are doing. We have made good decisions with regard to the creation of embryos for specific purposes. It would be my contention that, by removing clause 60, we take away the preference of COAG that they should review this issue, and then the issue can come back to the parliament for proper process and proper review of the use of those excess embryos. To do it any other way is not only illogical but also is a dereliction of the responsibilities members have accepted thus far in dealing with this legislation. To deal with it thus far and then say that anybody can review it whenever they want to is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go. We should accept the responsibility we are charged with, follow it through and do the review at a time of our choosing. Whether it be for excess embryos or fresh embryos, we should do it. (Time expired)10:56:007175Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00— With respect to the member for Mitchell, I am going to oppose his amendment that clause 60 be opposed. As I was saying earlier, at first blush the purpose of the amendment, as I understand it—and it sounds very noble—is to ensure that there is public accountability with respect to the substantive provisions of the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 as a whole; that is, the implementation of the licensing and use of human embryos for experimentation.At present, if proclaimed, the bill will place a power to review the operation of the act into the hands of the National Health and Medical Research Council. The NHMRC is not directly accountable to the people of Australia—we all agree with that—and for this reason I will oppose in principle the purpose of the member for Mitchell's proposed amendment to clause 61 of the bill. I note, from reading the member for Mitchell's amendments, that this amendment is inextricably mixed with the amendment with regard to clause 61 of the bill also foreshadowed by the member for Mitchell. In my view, it is therefore not possible to speak of each amendment to clause 60 and 61 in isolation, as it will not be clear what the intentions of these amendments are if read alone. Therefore, in order for members to vote with a clear understanding of the clause 60 amendment, each member must cross-reference the amendment proposed to clause 61 and read them side by side.What is the purpose of the member for Mitchell's amendment to clause 60? At present clause 60 ensures that the provisions of clauses 36(3)(a), 39(1)(c) and 39(c) are repealed by operation of the provisions of clause 60 on the occurrence of either of the following events: 5 April 2005 or, if the Council of Australian Governments declares an earlier date by notice in the Gazette, an earlier date. So I oppose, with respect, the member for Mitchell's amendments for the following reasons: one, the amendment will repeal the statutory sunset clause currently present in clause 60; and, two, in its place the provisions of clause 61 will appear, which will ensure a new 18-member parliamentary joint committee, as prescribed in the member for Mitchell's amendment to clause 61.I urge every member of this House to oppose the amendment for the following reasons. The central problems I see with the amendment are as follows. First, the statutory repeal of clause 36(3)(b) means that the National Health and Medical Research Council's powers under that clause are repealed, thus denying them the power to authorise the application of appropriate protocols and to ensure that those protocols are in place to enable compliance with the condition that such use—to damage or destroy the human embryo—is authorised only in respect of an embryo created before 5 April 2002. Second, the statutory repeal of clause 39(1)(c) means that the responsibility of the licence holder to report to the NHMRC that the human embryo has been destroyed is also repealed. Third, the statutory repeal of clause 39(3) means that any licence to permit experimentation on human embryos which may damage or destroy that embryo is repealed and the provision which would limit authorisation to use such an embryo created before 5 April 2002 is also redundant and thereby repealed.The intent of these three clauses is to ensure the existence of a sunset clause to the operation of the NHMRC's licensing and regulatory power to oversee the damaging or destructive use of human embryos. The amendment proposed by the member for Mitchell to clause 61 is supposed to further ensure that this power of review of the operation of the licensing provisions of the act now be transferred into the hands of the new proposed joint parliamentary committee. In isolation, I would support the member for Mitchell's recognition of the nonpolitical accountability of the NHMRC's powers to review the licensing and regulatory provisions of this act. However, in my view—and again with respect to the member for Mitchell—the proposed amendment confuses two separate issues. The first issue is that of the regulatory powers being transferred from the NHMRC to the joint parliamentary committee. This is a good thing, and I would endorse such amendment. The second issue is that of the existence of the sunset clause. I would recommend that the proposed statutory effect of the automatic repeal of clauses 36(3)(a), 39(1)(c) and 39(3) may, whilst preserving the member for Mitchell's intent, transfer review powers from NHMRC to the proposed joint parliamentary committee. (Time expired)11:01:007176Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Mr Speaker, thank you for the chance to say a few words on this important amendment moved by the member for Mitchell, and the subsequent amendment on a similar theme and topic. Perhaps I can say to the House that, of all the amendments which my colleagues the members for Mitchell and Sturt have put to the House, this is probably the most important. It is not that the others were unimportant, but this is probably the most important because it goes to the heart of what this parliament should be on about—and that is parliamentary sovereignty, parliamentary control over the things that we initiate. I support this amendment and I strongly support the next amendment because I support parliamentary sovereignty.It is not that I do not admire the work of Australian scientists and it is not that I do not have considerable respect for the COAG process. I certainly support the ability of Australian scientists to do good work by good means. But I do not believe that it is always safe to trust people to be the judges in their own cause. If this bill is not amended, the scientists will be the judges in their own cause—and that is a very dangerous thing to extend to the scientists of Australia, for all their goodwill. In this debate and in this whole consideration of embryo research, we have already seen just how easily the ethical standards of the scientists can be corrupted and perverted by their enthusiasm for what they see as a good cause. We have already had here in this parliament a classic case of how people can get carried away in a good cause. I am sure that Dr Trounson is a good man, but he has behaved badly to make a point on at least three occasions that this parliament is aware of.Firstly, before the coalition party room, Dr Trounson showed MPs a video of a crippled rat and referred to this rat as having been substantially helped by what he called an injection of embryonic stem cells. We now know that this was simply false, and we have no reason to think that Dr Trounson did not know that this was simply false when he made his claim. Secondly, he was asked for a written reference to back up his video and he referred to an article published, he said, by Nature Medicine online in August of this year. Again, there is no such article. There is no article to back up the research claims that he made to the coalition party room. Thirdly, Dr Trounson gave Senator Boswell and the party room an undertaking that he had no more shares in companies involved in the commercialisation of this research. However, press reports subsequent to that undertaking showed that he did have and continued to have shares in such companies.As I say, I am sure that Dr Trounson is an essentially good man. But all of us know of the pressures that people come under to bend the rules and twist the truth in a good cause. That is why it is absolutely imperative that this parliament does not give away its sovereignty to the scientists. This amendment and the following amendment are extremely important and they should be supported in this House by everyone who supports the sovereignty of this House and the sovereignty of the Australian people as opposed to the sovereignty of the scientists. I have given three examples of where Dr Allan Trounson, a good man who has bent the rules in what he regards as a good cause, has gone wrong. But let me give you another example of the kind of situation where even the best intentioned and the most highly qualified scientists can go horribly wrong. I do not believe that this parliament should allow the scientists to be the judges in their own cause, given their demonstrated ability and propensity to make terrible mistakes. I refer to a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine of March this year, which was subsequently written up—(Time expired)11:06:007177Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I support the member for Mitchell's amendment to clause 60 because, if the amendment is not passed, we face the position where the parliament will have abrogated to COAG its own responsibilities and where COAG could, at any moment between now and 5 April 2005, review the ban on the use of embryos for research and lift that ban. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of COAG to make decisions on behalf of the Commonwealth government or this parliament. I do not believe that we would be acting responsibly by allowing COAG, between now and 5 April 2005, to lift the ban on the use of embryos for research. Even if COAG does not do that, clause 60, as a sunset clause, will automatically lift the ban on 5 April 2005 anyway.If the amendment to clause 61 were passed and if clause 60 was not opposed, you could face the absurd situation where the ban on embryos for the purposes of research was lifted either by COAG or on 5 April 2005 while a review was being conducted by the parliament as to whether those embryos should or should not be allowed. So you would face open slather on the embryos created after 5 April 2005 while the review was being conducted as to the benefits or disadvantages of that course of action. It seems logical to me that the ban on the use of embryos created after 5 April 2005 should remain in place until that review, as contemplated in clause 61, is completed. Therefore, opposing this clause will have the sensible effect that a ban stays in place until a review is completed into the use of embryos for a certain purpose.I support opposing this clause very strongly and I support it for a number of other reasons. I believe all the reasons why I oppose embryonic stem cell research can be encapsulated into support for opposing this clause because it continues indefinitely the ban on the use of embryos created after 5 April 2005. I dealt with some of those in my speech during the second reading debate, but some of them are useful to reiterate. One is that at law, the High Court has already ruled on the use of the smallest human beings by other human beings for their benefit. Chief Justice Brennan, he was then Justice Brennan, in Marion's case in 1992, said:The law will protect equally the dignity of the hale and hearty and the dignity of the weak and lame; of the frail baby and of the frail aged; of the intellectually able and of the intellectually disabled ... Our law admits of no discrimination against the weak and disadvantaged in their human dignity.The member for Mitchell's opposition to this clause would continue the ban on the use of embryos created after 5 April 2005 until a review had been conducted. By so doing it would protect the smallest human being which, in my opinion, is a fertilised egg, which has the potential to become a living and breathing human being just like you and I.There are other reasons to support opposing this clause and they deal with the benefits of adult stem cell research vis-a-vis the benefits of embryonic stem cell research. But as my time is drawing to a close I might seek the indulgence of the House for five minutes later on, after another member has spoken.11:11:007177Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise to encourage the parliament to leave clause 60 as it is. There are a couple of reasons for this. I concur with the remarks of my colleagues in exploring the relationship of the parliament and the handling of these issues. I cannot help but reflect on the debate that just occurred on the earlier amendment, where we were insisting upon the sovereignty of the states and territories being factored in. As it stands, the clause here recognises that an expert body will carry out a review and this is a nationally consistent scheme that will be legislated for not only in this parliament but also in other state and territory parliaments around the nation. So it is not actually only our scheme; the Commonwealth parliament is not the only parliament with an interest and jurisdiction over this debate. The COAG arrangements, as reflected in clause 60, give life to that in a sense that the review can be carried out and each of the parliaments can deal with it as it sees fit and COAG can come together and reflect on the conclusions.The process is not that dissimilar to the one we have already been through. My friend Mr Cadman, the member for Mitchell, the member for Lowe and I had two years bonding on this subject, following an earlier body of work from the Australian Health Ethics Committee that canvassed the scientific, ethical and regulatory considerations relevant to the subject before us today. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs picked up that work and said, `It is incomplete. We need to do more analysis and we need to incorporate other points of view and take a broader reading on the public sentiment about these subjects.' And so it embarked on a two-year process to carry forward the work that was initially done by the Australian Health Ethics Committee. There was a decision of the parliament to do what it thought was appropriate in response to work that the scientists and others had already done.This is what is envisaged in clause 60. It does not preclude the parliament entering into an examination. It certainly does not stop the kind of review that the member for Sturt, the member for Mitchell and others have talked about—it does not preclude that at all. Opposing the clause would prescribe that the Commonwealth parliament carry out a review on a national framework of which the Commonwealth is not the only stake-holder—there are states and territories involved. The process envisaged by COAG is to have a review carried out by a committee with membership endorsed by the states and territories and the Commonwealth, all of whom are stakeholders in this national scheme, and then allow the parliaments to rightly have a look at the review and respond to it as they see fit—precisely the process that has given us the informed debate that you have been hearing in this place.The other issue relates to the prohibition date, and I understand why they are linked. But suffice it to say that there is parallel work going on during this time: there is an examination by another ethics committee to see what the checks and balances can be to guard against the farming of embryos for the express purposes of stem cell research. No-one wants to see farming of embryos. What this process allows, while that window is in place on the prohibition of the use of embryos created prior to 5 April, is the guarding against the farming of embryos while work is carried out on what to do and what the current state of the science is.So it is a perfectly logical, perfectly understandable, perfectly transparent process that not only respects the sovereignty of this parliament but also the role and the sovereignty of other parliaments that are part of this nationally agreed scheme that involves legislation, checks and balances and stakeholders at a state and territory level. It is the perfectly appropriate, responsive, caring, thoughtful, well-informed, staged, coordinated review you would expect on such a complicated issue as this, and one which allows everybody to have their say and recognises that there are other interests and other stakeholders within the framework of a nationally consistent scheme.On those grounds, I say let us leave clause 60 just as it is. It is perfectly logical, perfectly understandable and does nothing to preclude the kind of review my friends and colleagues, who are seeking to prescribe a particular type of review, want. Let us have that review; let us not prescribe it. There are other players, other stakeholders, other sovereign parliaments that are rightfully able to play a role in the review process envisaged in clause 60 and the related provisions of the COAG agreement.11:15:007178Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I notice in the paper of the member for Mitchell and the member for Sturt that the purpose of deleting clause 60 and substituting a new clause 61 is that the parliament becomes the authority for review of this legislation. There is no doubt we all want that. The current Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 places the review in the hands of the National Health and Medical Research Council. We know that as it stands. In such a delicate matter affecting the conscience of members it is wise for the parliament to review the operational activity of the use of excess ART embryos. The composition of the parliamentary joint committee is included in the legislation.I have listened to what the Attorney, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the members for Dunkley, Sturt and Mitchell have said on this. I draw members' attention to proposed subsection (1) of clause 61—and perhaps the learned Attorney might be able to shed some light on it for me in this debate. It reads:As soon as possible after the second anniversary of the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent a joint committee of members of the Parliament, to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Review of the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Act, must be appointed.The problem for me with this provision is there is not a sunset clause. So as I understand it the subclause creates interpretational difficulties of reasonableness in that the parliament may delay the review with recourse only to the courts. If the parliament of the day—whatever colour—did not act as soon as possible, that would cause me great concern. I am saying that in my view, with respect, this is an ill-descript term which is fraught with statutory interpretational difficulties and which will be easily circumventable.In any event, there is a constitutional doubt in knowing whether a joint committee can be statutorally bound to a statutory power. That is why I am opposing this. All of us—that is, the parliament—want to take control of this and not have, if you like, Dracula running the blood bank; in other words, the National Health and Medical Research Council reviewing it. We know what outcome we will get if they do. I just hope you understand why I am opposing this. The theme of it in essence is very good, and I have thought carefully about it. Originally I was going to support this amendment but now cannot with those words `as soon as possible'.I also just take the opportunity while I have a couple more minutes—and I do not want to delay the House too much—to pay tribute to Dr David van Gend from Do No Harm: Australians for Ethical Medical Research in this debate. The minister was talking about what Professor Trounson had done in terms of misrepresenting the benefits of embryonic stem cell research. Dr David van Gend said inter alia in his report to the Australian Senate Community Affairs References Committee on 13 September:His pervasive exaggeration of what embryonic stem cells might achieve, and persistent denigration of what adult stem cells are already achieving, has distorted the whole shape of stem cell science in the minds of MPs and the public.The tactic is always the same: ignore absolutely the published research with adult stem cells (which show dramatic success in rodents—to the point of now moving to human trials) and overstate the research using embryonic stem cells (which show very second-rate—and even dangerous—outcomes).I thought it was very prudent that this morning the minister drew that to the attention of the House because we have very ethical doctors and scientists in Australia trying to tell the truth. And I think what we are all trying to do in this debate is tell the truth to the people who elected us.11:20:007179Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I very much appreciate the comments that have just been made by the member for Lowe and I can understand why he would want a stronger form of parliamentary review than that proposed by the deletion of this clause and by the insertion of the following amendment. But I urge him nevertheless to support opposing this clause and the next amendment because that is much better than what is currently proposed in the bill, which is to leave the review entirely in the hands of the National Health and Medical Research Council.I was talking about a report, published on 8 March last year in the New England Journal of Medicine and then covered in the New York Times, which was dealing with a trial for treating Parkinson's disease sufferers with the implantation of cells from aborted foetuses. I have to report to the House that according to this New England Journal of Medicine report the trial of the use of these cells produced uncontrollable movements in some patients. I quote:`They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex and distend,' Dr. Greene—one of the researchers—said. And the patients writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about. `It was tragic, catastrophic,' he said. `It's a real nightmare. And we can't selectively turn it off.'Dr Greene, who was part of this research project, said:No more foetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced that this should be considered for research only. And whether it should be research in people is an open question.Nevertheless—and this is typical of the arrogance of scientists, and this is typical of what will happen if the sovereignty of science and the scientists is enshrined in this bill as currently proposed—it was reported in the New York Times that:... many Parkinson's disease experts said it had to be done because doctors were already offering the surgery to patients, and charging them for it, at costs of $40,000 or more ...This did not happen in the Third World; this did not happen in some country with unregulated medicine. This happened in the United States, a country with the strictest ethical safeguards operating under traditions of decency and humanity. This is what happens when we let the scientists be judges in their own cause. The distinguished American thinker Francis Fukuyama said in his recent book Our Posthuman Future:The ultimate question raised by biotechnology is: What will happen to political rights once we are able to, in effect, breed some people with saddles on their backs, and others with boots and spurs?This is `Frankinscience'; it is a perversion of real science. Too many of the scientists are peddling false hope to people in trouble. I say to the supporters of this bill: please think again and reflect on the trouble caused by good intentions. Every parent knows that sometimes for a good cause we have to refuse things, and we should refuse the scientists the sovereignty they seek over this kind of research. I very much fear that, if the bill is passed without the amendment that my friends and colleagues the member for Mitchell and the member for Sturt seek, what we will see is sophisticated snake oil for the gullible, the credulous and the desperate.I say to other members of this House: by all means, support the bill, but do not abrogate responsibility for supervising what you have permitted. Unless this clause is opposed, this parliament will be abrogating its responsibility to supervise what it has done. It will be too easy, if we do not oppose this clause, for members of parliament to wash their hands of all the frightful things which I fear will flow if this bill is passed. We are permitting this kind of embryo research, but we must maintain our parliamentary responsibility for it. That is why this clause should be opposed and the next amendment should be supported.11:25:007180Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Although most of those who have spoken on the debate on clause 60 have referred to the proposed amendment to clause 61 as well, I am going to confine my remarks to clause 60. This clause in the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 gives effect to the COAG decision that the regulation restricting the use of excess ART embryos created after 5 April 2002 will cease to have effect on 5 April 2005 unless an earlier time is agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments. COAG's view was that the restrictions on the use of embryos created after 5 April 2002 should cease to have effect in three years unless an earlier time is agreed by COAG. The bill reflects this position. Therefore, after 5 April 2005—or an earlier time agreed by COAG—work that may damage or destroy an embryo may be undertaken, subject to a licence, on embryos created not only before 5 April 2002 but also after that time.It is perhaps appropriate to ask why COAG would contemplate that there might be occasion for COAG to bring the time—in effect, the sunset clause—forward. This relates to the availability of embryos. In the second reading debate, the number of 70,000 embryos in storage in Australia was referred to on many occasions. In fact, it should be stressed that this number does not represent how many excess ART embryos are available for research or other uses; these embryos are in storage because the couple for whom they were created still intend using them or have not yet determined what they would like done with them. The 5 April 2002 restriction could need to be lifted to ensure an adequate supply of excess ART embryos for research.I do not support the member for Mitchell in opposing clause 60. That would simply eliminate clause 60, which would, in effect, eliminate the sunset clause. The effect would be to retain the restriction that the embryos must have been created prior to 5 April 2002 if they are to be used for research that may damage or destroy them. This amendment, like others debated earlier, would undermine the nationally consistent approach agreed by COAG. Removing the 5 April 2002 restriction in three years time is aimed, as I said, at ensuring the adequacy of supply of excess ART embryos for research.The need for this restriction will be considered as part of two reviews commissioned by COAG to report by 5 April 2003. The first will be done by the National Health and Medical Research Council. It will review the adequacy of supply and distribution for research of excess ART embryos. The second will be done by the working committee of the Australian Health Ethics Committee that is revising the Ethical Guidelines on Assisted Reproductive Technology. It is to report on protocols to preclude the creation of embryos specifically for research purposes, with a view to reviewing the necessity to retain the restriction on embryos created on or after 5 April 2002. These reviews will ensure that strong ethics and research protocols and appropriate safeguards are in place prior to the sunset clause coming into effect.The member for Mitchell claimed that clause 60, by allowing COAG to lift the 5 April 2002 restriction, might allow fresh embryos to be created for the purposes of research. In fact, that could not happen. I draw the member for Mitchell's attention to clause 14 of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act recently passed in the House. Clause 14 makes it an offence to create a human embryo for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman.11:30:007181Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition supports clause 60 of the bill and opposes the proposed amendment from the member for Mitchell in respect of clause 61. These are matters which are the subject of a conscience vote on this side of the House. As the Attorney indicated, most members have taken the opportunity to speak both on clause 60 and the review provision of clause 61, either in the bill or as foreshadowed by the member for Mitchell. I will do likewise in the hope that that might curb debate on the proposed amendment to clause 61. I would not be so optimistic as to contemplate it would eliminate it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The chair has certainly accommodated that and accommodates the member for Perth as well.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with the comments the Attorney-General has made so far as the sunset clause is concerned. Firstly, it is consistent with the COAG agreement. Secondly, the combination of the sunset clause and the review processes which the bill puts in train will be more than sufficient to offset, prohibit and prevent any of the dangers which have been referred to by members who oppose clause 60 and support the member for Mitchell's foreshadowed amendment to clause 61.It is not as though the COAG process on a matter such as this will occur behind closed doors. Any decisions in these areas by COAG or by this parliament will of course be done under the greatest scrutiny with the greatest transparency. The suggestion that somehow the sunset clause and the review clause are a perversion of this House or this parliament's sovereignty is frankly a nonsense. SD4Cadman, Alan, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—This has been a very constructive debate and the member for Mitchell is doing nothing to aid the atmospherics of the debate. The member for Perth has the call.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—The combination of the sunset clause and the review process will ensure that the dangers referred to by the Leader of the House, for example, are fallacious arguments and fears. The suggestion that somehow this Commonwealth parliament's authority is being subverted behind closed doors is a nonsense. The review process put in train by the bill, in the end, will ensure that whatever changes are made will be determined by this parliament. So far as the review process is concerned, given that we are seeking to achieve a nationally consistent agreement instead of legislation between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories, it is appropriate that the review process be initiated through COAG and the National Health and Medical Research Council. That will not change anything. If any changes are to be made to the legislation as a result of experience, they will be effected by this parliament in the same way that we have debated this bill.11:33:007182Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I could not believe my ears and I am sorry that I could not contain myself, but the speaker was speaking for the opposition. He was not speaking on his own conscience. The opposition has a view on this—and it is the weirdest thing I have ever heard that the opposition has a view—but its members can make their own decisions. Talk about an iron fist within a velvet glove. That is what this is about: holding a fist over the heads of your members by having an official point of view. The previous speaker presented an official point of view for the Australian Labor Party that they do not want the Australian parliament to review something.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Mitchell must also link his remarks closely to clause 60.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I am coming to the review process—that this parliament not review it.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You referred to the timbre and spirit of the debate, which the member for Mitchell is doing his best to undermine. I have made the point previously. The member for Mitchell would not want to try the patience of the House, because there are procedures available.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Perth does not have a point of order and I hope he would concede. Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The chair is attempting to address the parliament and is not being facilitated by the member for Sturt or by the member for Rankin in this instance. I hope the member for Perth will at least concede that the chair had already intervened in the member for Mitchell's remarks. The member for Mitchell will bring his remarks to clause 60.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I was coming to that and, in doing so, I am happy to have the gag applied any time the opposition spokesman cares to apply it. The arguments of the Attorney are interesting because he says the review may need to be done because nobody is sure whether the 70,000-odd embryos are sufficient for the purposes required by researchers. It is a fascinating argument because we have the researchers, such as Professor Trounson, saying in the one instance he has enough, and in another instance, he will need many more. The inconsistency of the scientific remarks leads me to be deeply concerned that the Attorney should be advancing the argument that the 70,000-odd excess embryos available at this time or at the time prior to the 5 April 2000 may not be adequate for the purposes of research. Therefore, a review may be required earlier than 2005. To my mind, that is opening up a Pandora's box as to how far it is the intention of those involved to take this issue.The fact of the matter is that the review process needs to take place and the arguments presented, and that it will automatically come back here is not the case. Clause 60 repeals automatically certain sections of the act. That process means that it does not come before the parliament. It only comes before the parliament if we decide to amend this legislation and make it come before the parliament. On the one hand, the review is done by a body of scientists who report to COAG and COAG makes a decision remote from any consultation with the parliament. On the other hand, the other process in clause 60 is that in three years time there are three sections of the act which are automatically repealed which relate to the destruction and damage of embryos. These are not a matter of review; the only review is a secret review with, I suppose, some public consultation conducted by the scientists for the purpose of advising COAG, which makes the decision. We do not make a decision here, and that is why I object to clause 60. I think it should be removed. There should be transparency in the process. To have some sort of backdoor review process or an automatic repeal without the say of the parliament is a denial of the responsibility of the parliament. I respect the member for Dunkley, but his arguments are just absolutely off the planet and unrelated to the facts of the bill. (Time expired)11:38:007183Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I support the comments made by the member for Mitchell. He and I were on that human cloning inquiry for two years, and Professor Trounson did say to us that he had sufficient embryonic stem cell lines and would not require any more and that he was only interested in getting the support of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs so he could continue the research on embryonic stem cells which he had obtained from Singapore. Of course, all that changed after the report of the committee was handed down and he decided that he wanted more stem cell lines. The possibility that the scientists, like Professor Trounson, could draw on some of those 70,000 embryos—I do not share the Attorney's view—is unacceptable to us.I also support the thrust of the member for Mitchell's amendment because it brings this act back to the parliament and keeps it in the hands of the parliament and not the NHMRC. After thinking about these proposed amendments over the last couple of weeks, I want to put a proposal to the member for Mitchell. I notice he has just left the chamber. Perhaps the member for Sturt could speak for him. I would be far more comfortable with this amendment if the first four words—`as soon as possible'—in the proposed amendment could be replaced with `immediately'. I said earlier in my contribution that this clause has no sunset component. I believe that there are interpretational difficulties of reasonableness in respect of what `as soon as possible' means and that a parliament at a future time could delay this and force those who are concerned with getting this matter resolved to go to the courts to get the parliament to act `as soon as possible'. I would like to ask the member for Sturt—I am not sure where the member for Mitchell is at the moment—if he could consider the word `immediately'. I would feel much more comfortable with that: it makes it plain, on the anniversary, that it does not leave any loopholes to drag this out any longer. I am supporting the deletion of the sunset clause. I would like this amendment to read: `Immediately after the second anniversary of the day on which this act receives royal assent a joint committee of members of the parliament, to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Review of the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Act, must be appointed.' I notice that the member for Mitchell is now coming back into the chamber. I am wondering if he could entertain my request—I could not imagine that he could disagree with it—to instead of saying `As soon as possible after ...' just say, `Immediately after the second anniversary of the day on which this act receives royal assent ...' I would be much more comfortable with that. I think it is stronger. Even the member for Warringah, who has also left the chamber, accepted what I was saying, because what the member for Mitchell is proposing keeps it in our hands. Otherwise, it puts us in a situation where we might never get a resolution of this—a review—in a timely manner. I think `immediately' is better, so members of the committee could be appointed and the committee of senators and members could immediately get to work to review the legislation. I invite a response from the member for Mitchell. Basically, I am agreeing with virtually everything he is saying.11:43:007184Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—The member for Mitchell and I have just conferred on the question asked by the member for Lowe. I point out to him that the reason why it says `as soon as possible' rather than `immediately' reflects the fact that the parliament may well not be sitting on the anniversary of the bill on 5 April 2005. Therefore, it would be not practicable to say `immediately' because the parliament would need to sit and a motion would need to be put through to set up the committee and establish the terms of reference et cetera. As a consequence of that, `as soon as practicable' is really what is being said. It is not designed to give the government of the day opportunity to delay it; `as soon as possible' here means `as soon as practicably possible the parliament can meet and consider the committee to be set up'. Also, of course, political parties would need to choose people to be on such a committee. So `as soon as possible' means `as soon as practicably possible after the anniversary of the bill', whereas `immediately' places a condition on the government or the parliament that cannot be fulfilled if the parliament is not sitting. That is the reason. The member for Lowe might like to come back on that. I have a few other comments I want to make.There have been comments made by a couple of other members who spoke on this bill. One of them was by the member for Perth, who said that this parliament would be the final arbiter of any kind of repeal or review. What that indicates is a fundamental lack of understanding of the clause in the bill. The bill says:Paragraphs 36(3)(b) and 39(1)(c) and subsection 39(3) are repealed on whichever of the following days applies: (a) 5 April 2005; (b) if the Council of Australian Governments declares an earlier day by notice in the Gazette—that earlier day. The bill allows COAG, by gazettal, to repeal the ban on embryos created after 5 April 2002. If it goes down that track, there is no requirement for COAG to ask this parliament or the executive of the government for any permission to do so. If COAG decides—if the premiers, the chief ministers and the Prime Minister decide—that an earlier day will be the day the ban is lifted, it can be done by gazettal. The member for Perth obviously does not understand what the second subclause in clause 60 means. It obviously means that, by gazettal, COAG can repeal the ban on the use of embryos created after 5 April 2002. The amendment moved by the member for Mitchell places this back in the hands of the parliament. Clause 60 specifically maintains the ban until that review is completed. With respect to what the member for Perth said, I would say that this particular subparagraph of clause 60, subparagraph (b), was introduced because, at the COAG agreement meeting, the Premier of New South Wales insisted that there be a clause in the bill that would allow the premiers and the Prime Minister to meet again at a time to be determined and decide whether the ban should be lifted. That was not the intention of the Prime Minister going into the COAG meeting; it is what came out of the COAG meeting as a consequence of Premier Carr insisting, with the support of other premiers, that it be in there.The Attorney-General said that one of the reasons why this clause is in here is that we are not certain how many embryos may be required for research. But this is a perfectly good reason why the ban should remain in place. The ban should remain in place because—Mr SWAN (Lilley) (11.48 p.m.)—I move:That the question be now put.11:52:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 57Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Entsch, W.G.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Kemp, D.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Nairn, G. R.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sercombe, R.C.G. *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Tuckey, C.W.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.66Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, J.I.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Forrest, J.A.Gallus, C.A.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.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Murphy, J. P.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.O'Connor, G.M.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Schultz, A.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.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Windsor, A.H.C.Question negatived.12:00:007185Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I thank my colleagues for supporting liberty, democracy and freedom and the right of people to speak on a conscience matter to do with the consideration in detail stage. I was only making my second contribution on this amendment, I would point out to the House. I have spoken for six minutes on this bill.An opposition member interjecting—9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Other members of the parliament from your side have spoken many more times than I have, and you are not in your place.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Sturt will address his remarks through the chair.An opposition member interjecting—9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—No, it is not; it can't be.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will require the member for Sturt to resume his seat if he does not exercise the courtesy of addressing his remarks through the chair.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Thank you, Mr Speaker, I apologise for that; I was deeply provoked. I was referring to the comments made by the Attorney-General that the lifting of the ban may be necessary because 70,000 embryos—that is, embryos created before 5 April 2002—may not be enough for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research. In the Senate committee evidence that we have seen already being drawn out in the other place, claims have been made by different scientists one after the other. One scientist has claimed that as many as 10 million embryos may be needed. Another scientist has claimed that as many as seven million embryos may be needed. Other scientists have said that we have enough stem cell lines in existence in the world today that embryos will never need to be created for the purposes of creating a stem cell line. Professor Allan Trounson has said in some conversations that no more embryos are needed, that between 600 and 800 stem cell lines are enough and that they are all the embryos that he would need. Then we have the Attorney-General saying that 70,000 may not be enough.That is a good reason in itself to vote for the member for Mitchell's amendment, because it says that the ban should remain in place until a review is conducted by the parliament. That gives the opportunity for the ban to remain in place—and a pause to be introduced into this debate—until a proper review is conducted by the parliament. When the review is conducted, it may well be decided whether the ban should be lifted. So that is the reason why I support the member for Mitchell's amendment.It was also claimed by the member for Perth that the COAG process should not happen behind closed doors, that it is an open, transparent and accountable process. The parliament should be unconcerned about the idea of COAG making these decisions on behalf of the parliament. It is a new idea for me that the COAG agreement is an open book. Most of us know that, of the arrangements and agreements made at COAG, the real decisions are made behind closed doors; the real deals are struck behind closed doors. And then, when the deal has been struck, the public announcement of those deals is made and the process of having the meeting goes on. COAG would be one of the least transparent processes in our political system, because the premiers, the chief ministers and the Prime Minister get together and strike a deal. In supporting the member for Mitchell's amendment, I am saying that, rather than allowing COAG by gazettal—which is what is being proposed here—to lift the ban on the use of embryos created after 5 April 2002, the ban should stay in place until a review by the parliament is conducted, as covered by clause 61, and then a decision will be able to be taken.I also said that there are good reasons for the ban to remain in place, one of which is that we are not convinced at the moment that adult stem cells cannot do all the things that embryonic stem cells can do and are doing.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—How many times have you said that? You have said that a hundred times.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—That is the second time I have said that. Adult stem cells have the capacity to be as versatile as embryonic stem cells, and that has been shown by the University of Minnesota research.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a standing order against repetition. In this long, 30-hour debate the member for Sturt has made that comment a hundred times. He has said a hundred times that adult stem cells are as good as embryonic stem cells. That is out of order. This is just unnecessary repetition.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—That is not true. It is the second time. Check the Hansard.10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—I have only just resumed the chair and I cannot rule on that point of order at this stage; therefore, I call the member for Sturt.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—I would be happy for the member for Werriwa to check the Hansard. This is only the second time in this whole debate that I have commented on adult stem cells: the first was in my speech on the second reading debate and now I am about to start talking about it a second time. (Time expired)12:05:007186Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I rise to oppose the amendment of the member for Mitchell and to support the provisions of the bill.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not aware that my time had expired.10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—The member for Sturt's time has expired, but he will have the opportunity to speak again if he chooses.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—There can be no doubt that the member for Sturt's time has expired. This filibuster is discrediting this whole parliament. It is about time the government took control of their legislative agenda, if they are serious. If they were serious, they would not be coming to us and asking us to sacrifice speaking time on other bills. If they were really serious about this legislation, they would bring this ridiculous debate to an end, not because the issues are ridiculous but because of the abuse of this parliament by some members of this parliament, and other members here are heartily sick of it. If the government do not have the gumption, the wit or the organisation to bring this debate to a conclusion then members who feel strongly about these provisions will speak, and they will continue to speak. They will continue to speak until the government takes control of the legislative agenda of this House. So I favour the retention of clauses 60 and 61.It appalled me before to see that, though we were having a conscience vote in this House, the Government Whip came in when it was gagged and forced members to one side of the House to continue the ridiculous nature of this debate. I thought it was a conscience vote, so why was the Government Whip in here forcing members of the government to vote in one particular way? It just shows what a shambles this parliament is and what it has descended to, and how one or two members are prepared to abuse the privileges of this parliament for their own personal obsessions. A lot of members on both sides of the House are heartily sick of it. Until the government puts some sort of rigour or constraint on those people, those who feel strongly about these issues are going to exercise their legitimate right to speak strongly for the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002.An overwhelming percentage of the Australian community supports this bill. This is a bill that was signed by six state governments and the Prime Minister. This is a bill which an overwhelming majority of members of this House voted for in the second reading. Yet we have just been through one of the longest filibusters in the history of this parliament to satisfy the egos of one or two members of this parliament. That has brought not only them into disrepute but also the parliament as a whole. In the process of doing that, they have trivialised the important issues we are dealing with here with constant repetition—all for self-promotion, not to encourage detailed debate of important moral, ethical and scientific principles.I happen to think it is very important that there is review of this legislation. I happen to think it should be in the hands of the NHMRC. I think we should charge that body with the independent review of this act. I think that is very important. After the performances of some members of this House on the legislation, I would not entrust it to them. I urge all those members of the House who voted for this legislation—an overwhelming majority—to come into the House and speak loudly for this bill; to exercise their rights as parliamentarians to speak for this bill in the same way that one or two other members of parliament have abused the privileges of this House and spoken at length. In that way they have trivialised much of the debate, and that is the way it will go until we see some spine and some organisation from the government.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—Some Pyne?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Not Pyne. So all those people who strongly support this bill—all those members on this side of the House who strongly support this bill—will freely exercise their consciences and make their important contributions to this debate for the rest of today, and tomorrow if necessary.12:10:007187Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—In the course of debate earlier today and on preceding days I have taken the view that it was the wish of the House to deal with these matters as quickly as possible while giving members of the House who wanted to express a view adequate opportunity to do so. As a consequence, consistent with the Attorney-General, I have been making very modest contributions. While I have been making those modest contributions, thinking that it was the will of the House to allow people to express their views but nonetheless to come to a conclusion, I have not been responding in any way to some of the fallacious arguments launched by the member for Sturt or the member for Mitchell.What we have seen in the course of the entire debate—during the consideration in detail stage and during the splitting of the bill—is an outrageous filibuster on the part of the member for Sturt, the member for Mitchell, the Leader of the House and others. Because of his conflict of interest, the Leader of the House has outrageously and weakly abrogated his responsibility to bring any order whatsoever to these matters. I acknowledge that I have misread the mood of the House: as a result of the last division it is clear now that the mood of the House is for an extensive debate during the consideration in detail stage to seize all the issues raised by the member for Sturt, the member for Mitchell and the Leader of the House. I am quite happy to start that process.In the course of debate on clause 60, the Speaker, when he was in the chair, sensibly allowed a cognate debate on the member for Mitchell's opposition to clause 60 and his foreshadowed amendment to clause 61 because the two are linked. But that does not allow the member for Sturt to disingenuously and fallaciously misrepresent comments I have made to the House. I made the point with respect to clause 60 that the combination of the COAG process and the review process will, in my view, ensure that any of the dangers alluded to by the member for Sturt, the member for Mitchell and the Leader of the House will not occur. I have not argued that clause 60 requires COAG to come back to this parliament before it is operated—if, indeed, it is. The point I have made is that the combination of the COAG process—which, far from being a secretive, behind-closed-doors process is obviously and clearly transparent, involving as it does the leader of the Commonwealth and the leaders of all the states and territories—and the review processes initiated will ensure that any of the dangers fallaciously foreshadowed by the Leader of the House, the member for Mitchell and the member for Sturt will be offset.It is a separate question as to the nature of the review processes we effect. Those opposite—the member for Mitchell and the member for Sturt—have said that, if the review processes reflected by the bill occur, that will be a massive abrogation of the parliament's sovereignty. They say that the only way we can have a sensible and proper review is by adopting the member for Mitchell's amendment and having that review process effected by a joint committee of this parliament. It is sensible, given that we are dealing with a joint exercise between the Commonwealth and all the states and territories, that review of this legislation and the experience of this legislation—which we are seeking to have nationally consistent throughout the Commonwealth—be effected in a way that involves the COAG process. It is also sensible, in my view, that the review process be effected in a way that involves the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is the statutory authority of the Commonwealth chosen by the parliament, on the basis of the second reading vote in this place, to be the regulator.So the proposed review in clause 61 of the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 is to involve COAG and the National Health and Medical Research Council. It is clearly the case that, if any changes are to be made to the legislation, they will come before this parliament. What will this parliament do? It will consider it—in a second reading debate; in a consideration in detail stage debate; it may well decide that a committee of this House is relevant; it will almost certainly decide that a committee of the Senate is relevant. There will be no abrogation of this parliament's sovereignty—unlike those opposite, who have abrogated their responsibilities and abused the privilege of this parliament as extended to them.12:15:007188Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—This debate has, as members are aware, gone on for a long time. I thought members might be interested to know for how long. The second reading debate went on for 23½ hours. The debate on the suspension motion to enable a splitting of the bill went on for just under five hours. The consideration in detail debate has now proceeded for approximately 6½ hours, which is a total of something like 35 hours. In the consideration in detail debate, there has been only a relatively small number of members participating. The member for Mitchell has spoken 14 times, the member for Sturt has spoken 10 times, the member for Lowe has spoken 17 times, the member for Perth has spoken six times and I have spoken eight times.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—The member for Perth has only once used his full time.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—I did not use my full time most of the time either. A number of other members have spoken a small number of times. I think the House has reached the point where we ought to be drawing this debate to a close. I think the debate on the amendment to clause 60 has run its course and I propose that the member for Mitchell be offered an opportunity to reply briefly and that we then put the question. There has been significant debate already about the proposed amendment to clause 61 and, on that basis, I suggest that the debate on that be quite short and we would then put that question. Then we can get to the third reading. I invite all members of the House to act reasonably in disposing of this matter.12:17:007189Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Just a few moments ago, we took the opportunity to test the view of this House on whether the farce of the ongoing speeches by the member for Sturt, the member for Mitchell and some members on our side should come to an end. That view was resoundingly confirmed to be in a negative—that is, that this debate should go on for as long as people want to speak. You can see that a range of members on this side of the House do wish to speak on this. I think that is partly based on the presumption by the member for Sturt that he has passionate views about this and that somehow we who have a contrary view do not have passionate views. He wishes to demonstrate the passion with which he holds his views by speaking no less than 10 times—and he wants to continue speaking.Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you that members on both sides of the parliament have passionate views in favour of this legislation. To argue against it and put the point of view that I am passionately against some amendment relating to clause 60 is fallacious. If the member for Sturt thinks that both sides of the parliament are not passionate, he is now about to be enlightened, because there are plenty on our side of the parliament who do have very clear views on that. We wish to remove any uncertainty that may have been formed on the basis that, because we have not come into this place and spoken again and again, that means we do not have strong views. We do; there are many people in this parliament who have strong views.10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! I remind the honourable member we are debating clause 60.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—That is right, and I am coming to that, Mr Deputy Speaker. This bill is a bill as a whole. It has been prepared painstakingly over a very long period of time, including the review provisions. When members come into the House and opportunistically pick away at particular clauses simply to grandstand to those whom they believe support them and to demonstrate that they have strong views on this, they are attacking the integrity of the bill. That is why I am quite confident that a strong majority of members of this parliament are quite happy with the review processes involving the NHMRC and are quite unhappy with any suggestion from the member for Sturt that those review processes should be changed to suit his agenda.Some 35 hours have been devoted to this debate already and there are absolutely no signs on the part of those who wish to speak ad nauseam that they are prepared to rack the cue and maybe consider that they have already done enough grandstanding on these various issues. It is for that reason that we are now acknowledging the will of this parliament that was expressed just a few moments ago to allow the debate to go on. The debate will continue on the basis of a debate about clause 61 of this bill, which relates to the review processes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the review process involving the NHMRC. As I said earlier, this bill has integrity in terms of the review processes. To start unpicking it now due to some posturing and grandstanding, especially by the member for Sturt, is not going to work because there will be a diversity of views expressed on the bill, particularly on clause 61.If that is the way the government wish to manage this parliament, they should not come to us later and say that they have all this urgent legislation which needs to be shunted off to the Main Committee because the manager of government business is not prepared to do his job and is not prepared to sit his own side down. This place has descended into chaos and the government members who voted that way just a few moments ago have voted for the continuation of chaos.12:22:007190Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I want to speak on this amendment because I feel it is important that my views are actually recorded in the Hansard as to why we are actually still in this place discussing this legislation, particularly this amendment. I too have strong views, as the member for Rankin just expressed—much the same as the member for Sturt has strong views, much the same as every single member in this House has strong views—not only on this legislation but also on these amendments that are before us. The thing that separates us, though, in this case is what I am now terming the abuse of this parliament—the abuse of the processes of this parliament. The Attorney-General got up and basically asked us if we would just end this debate. There has been an inordinate amount of hours set aside, and there has been a good quality debate not only on the substantive matters within the bill but also on the amendments. Members should appreciate that, and I think the community should also appreciate that. But I think there comes a point in time when the debate is no longer a debate, when the amendments are no longer amendments to make a bill better and when you have come to a point where a decision needs to be taken. You just cannot put this off. The parliament is here to make a decision.We have to understand that six states have already agreed to the substantive matters within this legislation, that the Prime Minister and this government actually put forward this bill, and that the majority of members in this House have overwhelmingly supported the legislation. On that very basis, those who oppose—while their view is respected—should respect the view of others and they should allow this debate to end. It has to have a finish point when we actually get to make a decision on this legislation. No further argument can be brought forward in terms of the amendment.10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! I remind the member for Oxley that we are debating clause 60.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—I am aware of that—in terms of the repeal of clauses 36(3)(b), 39(1)(c) and 39(3). We had an opportunity in this place just recently to decide whether this debate would continue ad infinitum or whether we would actually decide to make a decision on the amendment that we are speaking about. But it is obvious that some people in this place want to ignore the processes of this House, ignore the agreements that were in place and ignore the commitments they made yesterday as to the time they would take. I might get a few quizzical looks from the member for Sturt, but he is the one who has broken the promise that he made yesterday. There was an agreement that he would sum up and that we would get on with this business, but that has not been the case. Instead, what we have seen, as I have said, is an abuse of the processes and time of this place.What we are going to see, though, is that the government will come back to us and say, `We haven't got time to debate very important legislation in this chamber,' and instead we are going to be forced to talk about clause 60. I think enough has been said about these amendments and it is time that we actually move on. It was made clear by the Attorney-General on these very amendments that only a very small number of members have actually spoken and they have spoken on this issue some eight, 10, 17 times—a whole range of times. I do not know that these members can further their argument any more. I think what they are doing is wasting the time of this parliament and making this legislation less valuable than it should be and are treating it without the respect that it deserves—the respect that we gave others in terms of their views on this legislation and on their views in terms of this amendment with respect to clause 60. If those people want to respect this parliament and respect the members in this parliament, then they should respect the views expressed and the decisions that have been taken here by the majority. They should respect those views, as we have respected their views. Earlier in this chamber—talking about a conscience vote—I saw a division down party lines; not 100 per cent but pretty close to it. People were being coerced to come over and support their colleague. This is not about supporting your colleague or your party; this is about making a conscious decision on the actual views and the amendments contained in clause 60 within the legislation. That is the conscience vote. People should not, as we saw before, be forced or coerced into making a decision. So it now rests with the government. It is up to the government to decide to make the decisions. When will you end this? Or do we have to stand up here and continue to speak on this and continue to put our view? (Time expired)12:27:007191Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I intend to be quite brief, but I do intend to be critical of the members for Rankin and Oxley, who seem to fail to understand the nature of a conscience debate and a conscience vote. This is a very important amendment to legislation in relation to research into embryos. The parliament is working as the people of Australia intended the parliament to be working. There is no agreement as far as times are concerned. The parliament has decided to set aside as long as is necessary to properly debate this very important topic. I think it is regrettable that the member for Rankin and the member for Oxley seek to deny honourable members in this place on both sides of the chamber the opportunity to debate the amendment currently before the House. I think that is exceptionally unfortunate. It is quite unreasonable, and I think the members for Oxley and Rankin ought to regret the stand they have taken. It is unreasonable, it is out of order and it is out of keeping with the current debate.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have consistently asked other members to address clause 60. In the case of this member who has been speaking for over two minutes you have made no such request. I would ask you to be consistent and ask this member to address clause 60 in any further remarks that he might make.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—On the point of order, I have been pulling members up after two minutes, but the member for Fisher has not actually been going two minutes. I call on the member for Fisher to get to the point of clause 60.Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney—Attorney-General) (12.29 p.m.)—I move:That the question be now put.12:33:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 98Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Billson, B.F.Bishop, J.I.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Corcoran, A.K. Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gallus, C.A.Gash, J.George, J.Georgiou, P.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hoare, K.J.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Irwin, J.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, P.E.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.Macklin, J.L.McArthur, S. *McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Mossfield, F.W.Moylan, J. E.Murphy, J. P.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.O'Connor, B.P.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Quick, H.V. *Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W. *Schultz, A.Secker, P.D.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, A.D.H.Snowdon, W.E.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Tanner, L.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Vamvakinou, M.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Wilkie, K.Williams, D.R.Zahra, C.J.26Abbott, A.J.Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Anderson, J.D.Baird, B.G.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A. *Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Forrest, J.A. *Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Jackson, S.M.Kelly, D.M.King, C.F.McGauran, P.J.O'Connor, G.M.Ripoll, B.F.Rudd, K.M.Ruddock, P.M.Smith, S.F.Swan, W.M.Thomson, K.J.Vaile, M.A.J.Windsor, A.H.C.Question agreed to.Question put:That clause 60 be agreed to.12:44:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 98Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Barresi, P.A.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Billson, B.F.Bishop, J.I.Burke, A.E.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Corcoran, A.K. *Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A. *Downer, A.J.G.Dutton, P.C.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Elson, K.S.Emerson, C.A.Entsch, W.G.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gallus, C.A.Gash, J.George, J.Georgiou, P.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Haase, B.W.Hall, J.G.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Johnson, M.A.Kemp, D.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.King, P.E.Latham, M.W.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Macfarlane, I.E.Macklin, J.L.McArthur, S.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.O'Connor, B.P.O'Connor, G.M.Pearce, C.J.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Prosser, G.D.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, A.D.H.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Swan, W.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, K.J.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vamvakinou, M.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Wilkie, K.Williams, D.R.Zahra, C.J.25Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Cadman, A.G.*Cameron, R.A.Draper, P.Forrest, J.A. *Hawker, D.P.M.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Lloyd, J.E.McGauran, P.J.Murphy, J. P.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pyne, C.Schultz, A.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Windsor, A.H.C.Question agreed to.Clause 61.12:54:007192Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I move:(4) Clause 61, page 33 (lines 3-31) page 34 (lines 1-7), omit the clause, substitute61 Review of operation of Act(1) As soon as possible after the second anniversary of the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent a joint committee of members of the Parliament, to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Review of the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Act, must be appointed.(2) The Parliamentary Joint Committee must consist of 18 Members, of whom (a) 6 must be Senators appointed by the Senate, and(b) 12 must be members of the House of Representatives appointed by that House(3) The appointment and service of members by a House must be in accordance with that House's practice relating to the appointment and service of Members of that House to serve as on joint committees of both Houses.(4) The Parliamentary Joint Committee must consider and report on the scope and operation of Parts 2 and 3 of this Act taking into account the following:(a) developments in technology in relation to assisted reproductive technology;(b) developments in medical research and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications of such research;(c) community standards.(5) The Parliamentary Joint Committee must present a written report of the review before the third anniversary of the day on which this Act received the Royal Assent.(6) The Parliamentary Joint Committee report must contain recommendations about amendments (if any) that should be made to this Act, having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (5).(7) The Parliamentary Joint Committee must consult:(a) the Commonwealth and the States; and(b) a broad range of persons with expertise in or experience of relevant disciplines;and the views of the Commonwealth, the States and the persons mentioned in paragraph (b) must be set out in the report to the extent that it is reasonably practicable to do so.This is the least complex of all of the amendments and deals purely with the establishment of a parliamentary committee. It would not be my purpose to seek to delay the House, but previous amendments have been complex and technical. Instead of a review being done by a group of scientists established to judge themselves on the worthiness of research programs and to judge the success of this legislation, my proposal is that this would come back to the parliament, that the parliament would consider how effective the legislation has been and that that would be done well before the end of the three-year period, because the amendment with the sunset clause has been carried. The parliament would then be required to review this matter, probably through a joint committee after about 2½ years from the commencement of this act.I have always felt it valuable that this place takes authority on difficult issues. It has been a difficult debate; I acknowledge that. But we are not here to run away from difficult topics. We are not here to do all the easy stuff. We are not here to do all of the routine legislation. We are here to make difficult decisions. That is what we are elected to do. Most of my electors understand only part of what we are doing in this legislation, but that does not absolve me from the responsibility of finding out the details and voting one way or another in best conscience on these matters. Despite the arguments from the Attorney-General and despite COAG and the premiers' wishes that they alone or that the National Health and Medical Research Council make a decision, it is my view that the parliament should make these decisions on the form of the committee to be established. The processes to be used are all set out in this amendment. It is a very simple amendment, which seeks to establish the authority of the democratic process on making difficult decisions.I do not have anything more to add. It is not technical; it is not complex. It takes away from the scientists their capacity to judge themselves. I notice with regard to the British legislation of a similar type that the comments from those who observed the process—people who are not prejudiced in the debate—have been consistently that it appears that the committee established by the British parliament consists of scientists who would be seeking to judge scientists. I do not think that is appropriate. I think, on matters of complexity such as this, we are charged with the responsibility of making decisions for our fellow Australians. Unless we are prepared to put an ethical and scientific framework around what people do, we may as well not be here. I want the committee to focus on whether or not the parliament should make these decisions.12:58:007194Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition supports existing clause 61 of the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 and opposes the amendment moved by the member for Mitchell, but it is on this side subject to a conscience vote. Far from the amendment being simple, not technical or not necessitating commentary, it is a very fundamental amendment. As a consequence, before one can consider the alternative proposal moved by the member for Mitchell, I think it is very important that the House understand fully and completely what the bill proposes by way of a review. Only by appreciating the review process presented to the House by the bill can we seek to compare that with the process suggested by the member for Mitchell, to highlight its deficiencies and to ask a number of questions of the mover of the amendment, which, to me, are unanswered. It is very important that the House appreciate the review process which is being presented to it by the bill. Clause 61(1), as presented to the House, states:The NHMRC must cause an independent review of the operation of this Act to be undertaken as soon as possible after the second anniversary of the day on which this Act received the Royal Assent.There are a number of important provisions in that first clause. The parliament requires that the review be independent, objective, impartial and, no doubt, based on the best science and best medicine. But the first and primary call to the National Health and Medical Research Council is that the review must be independent. Secondly, it is:to be undertaken as soon as possible after the second anniversary of the day on which this Act received the Royal Assent.What is proposed by that is the notion that, after a period of time during which the community and the parliament can gain some experience of the operation of the act, a review can be effected so as to ensure parliament's intention is met and to ensure that, if any changes are required, suggestions can be recommended along those lines. That is subclause (1) of clause 61.Subclause (2) is also very important because it raises—and I will come to this point subsequently—one of the difficulties with the alternative review process proposed by the member for Mitchell. Subclause (2) of clause 61 says:(2) The review must be:(a) undertaken by the persons who undertake the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act review; and(b) undertaken concurrently with the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act review.This comes, very importantly, to the potential adverse consequences of the House deciding to split the two bills. One of the concerns raised in the course of the debate about splitting the bill was whether the review processes would be the same. I will come subsequently to the review process as suggested by the member for Mitchell. The alternative review process does not seem to require that the reviews be either concurrent or conducted by the same people. I think it is important that this be required.The two bills—albeit having been split—are interrelated. They were subject to the same COAG decision. They were the subject of one bill, as originally presented to the House. So one of the dysfunctional effects of embracing the alternative review process proposed by the member for Mitchell is that I am unclear from his amendment whether the review process will be conducted by the same people, whether it will be conducted concurrently and what adverse consequences might flow if it is not the effect of his amendment that the review processes be conducted concurrently.Subclause (3) of clause 61 says:(3) The persons undertaking the review must give to the Council of Australian Governments a written report of the review.That is entirely sensible, and it makes a very important point. What this piece of legislation seeks to effect is not a Commonwealth scheme but a joint Commonwealth-state-territory uniform national scheme. So it is very important that the results of the independent review—proposed, in accordance with clause 61, to be done concurrently with the review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002—be presented to COAG. Why is that important? It is important because if this were simply a Commonwealth scheme, there might be some argument that, in the first instance, a committee of this parliament might start the process. That leaves to one side the entirely separate question as to whether, in this area—(Time expired)13:03:007195Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily over clause 61. Many of the issues to do with clause 61 were raised in the debate on clause 60. I would like to place on the record my very strong support for the member for Mitchell's amendment. I think this is the most important of all the amendments that have been debated in the consideration in detail stage because this amendment is about giving back to the parliament the power over the process of deciding whether embryonic stem cell research should continue.The bill as it is drafted at the moment gives that responsibility to the NHMRC, then to COAG and to the Prime Minister, the chief ministers and the premiers. What the member for Mitchell's amendment does is to place back in the hands of the parliament the sovereign right to consider the legislation in two years time. I think that is the most important amendment and the one that I would most strongly ask my colleagues to support.There is ample evidence that has come out in the last few weeks that there are severe doubts about the claims that have been made about the capacity of embryonic stem cell research to achieve its aims. Whether it is the University of Minnesota research, whether it is the crippled rat that has been shown to be a falsehood, or whether it is the Nature articles, which had been relied upon and which have turned out to be not the case, there are a number of indications that the claims that have been made are not accurate. The most important of these is that there has been little research done on animals in this area, yet we are already experimenting on human beings. Usually in science one begins by experimenting on animals and then one moves on to human beings, but in this case we are dealing with human beings before we have even tried to experiment on animals.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs Hoare—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The current debate is on the review of the operation of the act not on the actual science of embryonic stem cell research, which the member for Sturt has now ventured into.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I understood the member for Sturt was making a point as to the validity of professional people reviewing the future of their own research. It was in that context that I allowed him to continue.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was getting to that exact point. With the doubts that have been raised in the last few weeks about the scientific claims, I was going to say that to allow the NHMRC to be the final arbiter of a review in two years time of the claims that have been made and to decide whether embryos should be allowed to be experimented upon into the future would be an abrogation of our responsibility. The scientists should not judge the scientists. The parliament has been elected by the people, democratically, to reflect the people's will and for the good governance of the nation.We as parliamentarians have the responsibility to determine what is appropriate for the good governance of the nation. Sometimes we may be wrong; sometimes we may be right. But that responsibility should not be taken away from the parliament and given to the scientists to judge the scientists. So I strongly support the member for Mitchell's amendment and I call on my colleagues—regardless of all the other votes on other amendments which have so far failed, regardless of all the votes on whether the question should be put or not, which has muddied the waters, and regardless of the fact that some of the debate in the last hour has been less than edifying—to at least recognise that this amendment is about giving them, not an outside body, the right to review this legislation.13:07:007196Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Clause 61 is an integral part of the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002—possibly the most important part. I oppose any move by those on the other side of this House to change it from its current form. The member for Mitchell said that this whole debate is very difficult, one that members within this parliament should not run away from. I agree with that. But I and other members who have taken the position that I have—I support the bill in its current form; I support all the clauses of the bill—have been targeted as second-class members of this House, members that do not have a conscience, members that are not committed passionately towards the position that they have taken.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—With great respect to the member for Shortland, we do need to focus on clause 61.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—I am focusing on clause 61 as an integral part of this bill. I believe that removing or changing clause 61 would go to the effectiveness of the whole bill. As the member for Perth stated, it is very important that we have a uniform national review. There is nobody more suitable to conduct that review than the NHMRC. To bring the review into this House would not pay proper regard to the states and I believe it would get away from being an objective review of the operation of the legislation. All reviews by the NHMRC have to pass through a very strong ethical consideration—there are guidelines that must be met. I believe very strongly that a review undertaken in this House would be caught up in the values and moral issues rather than actually be a review of the operation of the act.I strongly respect the views of members in this House. Members have spoken ad nauseam on this legislation. Members have come in here time and time again to argue on every point of this legislation—just as they are with clause 61—trying to make it inoperable. I believe that it is absolutely important that clause 61 remain the way it is. My conscience dictates that it should stay as it is. My conscience says that, if this bill is to operate as intended, it is imperative that we retain section 61 in the way that it is detailed in this bill. To change it in any way will really affect the way this bill operates; it will really undermine the operation of this bill. If we bring it back to this parliament again, we will go through the same sort of debate that we have been through to date. Various members with strong views—which I respect in a way that I do not believe they respect my views—will come in here and try to derail this piece of legislation that will allow research and allow hope to many people in the community.If this legislation is not in place, we will not have uniform laws relating to embryonic stem cell research—uniform laws that can be properly reviewed only by the NHMRC. Such laws cannot be properly reviewed, I believe, within this Commonwealth parliament. Whilst I respect the member for Mitchell's point of view, I do not agree with his arguments in this instance. I strongly support the retention of clause 61 as stated.13:12:007196Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—As the member for Perth has pointed out, clause 61 of the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 is a carefully crafted provision that provides for the NHMRC to cause an independent review of the act to be undertaken, commencing two years after the act receives royal assent. It is worth pointing out that the review must undertake a number of things: it must be done by independent persons chosen by the NHMRC but with the agreement of all states and territories; it must include a consideration of the scope and operation of parts 2 and 3 of the act, particularly taking into account developments in assisted reproductive technology, scientific and research developments, potential therapeutic applications of any research, and community standards; and it must be informed by consultation with the Commonwealth, states and territories.The amendment would delete that clause and substitute a clause that provides for a review by a parliamentary joint committee. I do not support the amendment. Rather, the amendment, in my view, again risks losing a nationally consistent approach by limiting the role of the states in helping to choose appropriate persons to undertake the review, and by not providing for a report back to COAG. The member for Dunkley put quite cogently some of the practical reasons in opposition to the amendment. The parliament will consider any amendments to the act as a result of the review—by whomever it is done—so parliament's role is not being subverted or supplanted. The amendment does not preserve the integrity of the original bill before it was split, as the member for Perth has pointed out. The original bill provided for the concurrent review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 by the same persons.It has been argued in this context that, if the NHMRC were allowed to conduct the independent review, it would deny true public accountability. I do not accept that argument. The legislation does not allow the NHMRC itself to conduct the review; it is required to appoint independent persons to do it. As I pointed out, those persons are required to consult with the Commonwealth, the states and territories and a range of people with relevant experience in a range of disciplines. Furthermore, the agreement of all jurisdictions must be obtained to the identity of the reviewers. This arrangement is in accordance with the nature of the COAG agreement for national consistency. If changes to the legislation are considered necessary by COAG, these will need to be considered by the parliament and, presumably, by all state parliaments. It does not, in any way, preclude a separate parliamentary inquiry if parliament or either house should at some later stage consider it to be necessary. A decision to conduct a separate inquiry would be better informed if there were a previous review conducted in accordance with the present clause.I want to mention one other matter. In his speech in relation to the clause 60 amendment, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations was actually largely debating the amendment proposed for clause 61. In it, he made some allegations in relation to the conduct of Professor Trounson. I draw to the attention of the House that Professor Trounson has responded publicly to some of the criticisms of the type that were mentioned by the minister, and there are articles today in the Financial Review, the Canberra Times and the Age, among other newspapers, where his position is put. I think we have got very close to the point where we can close the debate on this amendment as well and close the debate on the bill.13:16:007197Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—As the debate on the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 and the amendments drags on, some members in this House think that the only members who should be heard in this debate are themselves. I think it is time to remind those members—and I hope they are listening; I note that the member for Mitchell has just left the chamber—that what we are debating in this bill is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The clause quite reasonably provides for a review of the operation of the bill by the National Health and Medical Research Council. In what is the rapidly changing world of biotechnology, it would be foolish of this parliament to agree to any amendment which would simply allow a committee to hold up what could well be a timely review of the operation of this bill. It might reasonably be expected that it will be necessary to change the bill within the short to medium term, and clause 61 states that the review must consult the Commonwealth and the states.It is well within the powers of this parliament to allow a committee to have input into this review, so the proposed amendment is not necessary. The proposed amendment is just another spanner in the works that some members want to throw in to frustrate the operations of this bill when it becomes law. With this series of amendments, what we have is nothing more than an attempt by a very small number of members of this House to pick the eyes out of this bill. There should be no doubt that the objective of some members is to make this bill meaningless. What those members have to realise is that, whatever changes they might like to make, the final package would then have to go back to the states for approval.This bill is not a smorgasbord that members can pick and choose from. We cannot have a bit of this and a bit of that. It is a set meal and you cannot throw away the menu. You cannot change the whole thrust of the bill and take away the overall intent of this bill. You cannot have the cheeseburger without the cheese, but that seems to be what some members of this House want to do. You would think that this was the only parliament that mattered. Some members of this House have been carried away with their own self-importance. They think that a conscience vote is an opportunity to push their own barrow on this issue, and they want to abuse the standards of fair play that are necessary for this House to operate.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will understand my having to interrupt her as I had to interrupt the member for Shortland. She must come back to clause 61.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—I feel that I am speaking to clause 61. I am advocating that we maintain the original clause in the bill. We all have limitations. We all have to live with the limitations on when and for how long we can speak in this House. We might not like to, but we have to abide by them. There are issues that other members here see as important, but we cannot get an opportunity to speak on them, and we accept that. But when the parliament is handed over to a small group of members who have had ample opportunity to put their case—and they have had ample opportunity—then it comes time to question what their agenda really is.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will understand that this is a little broader than the standing orders allow.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—I feel that the agenda is clearly not about good government in this country, and I think they should hold their heads in shame.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will not challenge the Speaker's ruling unless she wants me to act in a way that I do not intend to act. The member for Fowler understands that all I am doing is executing the standing orders which oblige her to make specific reference to clause 61. I have applied that standing order equitably to all members of the House.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—I thought I was speaking to clause 61, Mr Speaker. I am speaking to maintain the original clause in the bill, and I thank you.13:21:007198Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I rise to oppose the amendment proposed by the member for Mitchell that the review of the operation of the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 not be carried out by an independent review by the NHMRC but be carried out by this parliament. As other speakers have said in this discussion relating to clause 61, the clause and the subclauses, as they stand, allow for the Commonwealth and the states to have input into the review process. So, as the provision stands in the legislation, the review process would be carried out by the NHMRC, a nationally acclaimed and respected research and medical organisation, with the support of and input from various stakeholders.With this amendment, it seems to me that the member for Mitchell is proposing that the review be undertaken wholly within the parliamentary process. What he is trying to amend is a review process that involves all of the stakeholders. It has the health and medical research experts, it has the people who have been working in ART, it has the Commonwealth and it has the states—the whole range of stakeholders. I cannot see the need to change clause 61. The member for Mitchell talked about the parliamentarians being accountable. The parliamentarians are accountable. But it is not going to be a broad review process if only parliamentarians are involved.Last week, for two hours I think on Monday evening, we heard members speaking on various amendments. We have heard the same this week. In his speech, the member for Mitchell said—probably yet again—that this is the most critical amendment for him. I ask those members opposing the bill and proposing amendments: if this is the most critical amendment for them and if this parliament were to pass this amendment, would they then support this bill? I do not think so. I think even if all their amendments were passed, they would still not support this bill.I know the member for Mitchell and the member for Sturt have had various other proposals on the table for amending this legislation. As everyone here is aware, the debate has been going on for far too long in the minds of many of us. This is the first time I have spoken in this place on the consideration of the amendments. I had the opportunity—as did we all—to speak in the original debate on the legislation but, because I think this is the final amendment proposed by members in this place, I would like to make a final comment on the processes gone through in proposing amendments to this legislation. A couple of weeks ago in this place we debated the legislation, which had been agreed to by the Prime Minister and the states. Following that we had a proposal to split the legislation, which had been voted on in this place. The Prime Minister's legislation—I make the point that it was the Prime Minister's legislation and that he had carriage of it—was split, and that was done by a government backbencher. Now the Prime Minister is not here to vote on the legislation. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I point out to the member for Charlton that, if the standing orders were to be applied literally, even the remarks she made at the end would have been outside the standing orders, because we should be talking specifically about the amendment to clause 61.13:26:007199Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Like the member for Mitchell and the member for Sturt, I too want to facilitate a conclusion to this debate. It is unfortunate that the gag has been applied to speakers on the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002, a bill on which we have a conscience vote. I do not accept some of the comments that were made prior to the last divisions about grandstanding. I have sat through this debate and I have listened to it very carefully, and I believe there has been very thoughtful consideration. When people go back and actually check how much time has been taken up by people speaking on this debate, I think they will be surprised at the relatively small amount of time that the members for Mitchell and Sturt, in particular, have spoken. I have to associate myself with the criticisms of them, because those criticisms came from this side of the House. I support their right to speak, and I believe they were certainly not grandstanding.When I spoke on the previous amendment, I made reference to clause 61 and the amendment that the member for Mitchell is moving. I am being persuaded to support it, even as I speak, because this is a very good debate. The member for Mitchell was out of the chamber and the member for Sturt responded when I raised this issue, but I would like to ask a question of the member for Mitchell. I had originally suggested that, instead of `as soon as possible', I wanted the word `immediate', and the member for Sturt raised the issue that parliament might not be sitting. I have alternative words: in substitution for `as soon as possible', we could say `on the first sitting day of the House following the second anniversary of the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent'. I would like to know if the member for Mitchell would be prepared to accept that amendment.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I hesitate to interrupt the member for Lowe—and I will stand corrected—but are we dealing with clause 61? I thought this matter had been dealt with as part of clause 60.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—No, this is clause 61.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will allow the member for Lowe to continue.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—When I made my contribution in relation to clause 60, there were some of us—like the member for Warringah—who thought that you could not actually talk about clause 60 in isolation from clause 61.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I concede that point.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I am just asking the member for Mitchell whether he would mind if, instead of the words `as soon as possible', we used the words `on the first sitting day of the House following the second anniversary of the day' et cetera. That would really strengthen the legislation. Even he mentioned that 2½ years might elapse before we actually get a review of it, and I am anxious that this be reviewed. I accept the thrust of this, because we want to get rid of the sunset clause.This is very important legislation, and that is why we have a conscience vote. I think it is important that we have had this opportunity, and I believe we could actually resolve this matter before question time— that is, within 30 minutes. I will make my contribution to this end by not saying any more, other than to get a response from the member for Mitchell as to whether he would consider changing those first four words of his amendment to read `on the first sitting day of the House following the second anniversary' et cetera.13:29:007200Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—I think this amendment to the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 is premised on a number of false assumptions by the mover of the amendment and by those who support it, and, in particular, by the honourable member for Sturt, who spoke in support of the amendment earlier in this consideration in detail stage of the debate. One assumption is that the scientists involved in the discussions and experiments in relation to the work that will flow from this legislation—if it is adopted ultimately by the parliament—should not be involved in the review of the legislation or in the review of the work of those involved in stem cell experimentation. It is fundamental in science that those who are part of the scientific community are always involved in the review of the work of their colleagues. Science peer review processes are fundamental to the judgment of those in the science community of the value of the work of their colleagues. Peer review journals are fundamental to science, and peer reviewed grant applications are the way in which almost all science funding is allocated in this and most other countries. The peer review process has always been at the core of the science community's understanding of how science and the value of scientific work is judged. The value of a scientific contribution, the significance which the science community places on it and the confidence that the community has in the value and validity of that work is very much founded on peer review processes, as indeed it is in many other professions. The medical and legal professions review their own work. They rely very much on the peer review process to discipline members. That is fundamental to the professional approach that underlies most of our community's expectations in these areas.I think some members of the House also fundamentally misunderstand, in their application of this review clause, the way in which the parliament should approach this kind of legislation. They say that the parliament must be fundamentally involved in looking at the science behind embryonic stem cell research. They make comments about the validity of adult stem cell research; they compare it to embryonic stem cell research. They make value judgments about the comparative merits of adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, and they look at both kinds of research and make predictions about what might have more value in the future. Part of their understanding of the significance of this review process can be seen in their comments on which of these particular methods will result in the most effective treatments in the future. The member for Sturt, in supporting this particular amendment a short while ago in the House, made those kinds of comments. He said that the House should adopt this amendment because that was the way in which politicians could be held accountable to the community in judging which of these applications might in future be of more significance to the community. He said that the parliament could be held accountable for whichever of these kinds of scientific techniques might have more application. By implication, one might ascertain that he was contemplating that, if it turned out that adult stem cell techniques were of more value—in his opinion—than embryonic stem cell techniques over the next couple of years, the review process undertaken by the parliament might come to pass and one could eliminate the embryonic stem cell technique here.That implies the parliament will be undertaking a scientific review process—a task for which it is ill equipped and which has never been part of its undertaking or job specification. That is the task of the scientific peer review process, of which I spoke at the beginning of this contribution. That is the task for which the science community is very well equipped. That is the task which the science peer review process has always undertaken and undertaken very well indeed. It is an open and transparent process in the science community—one that is undertaken on a fully public basis and one to which all scientists can fairly contribute. (Time expired)SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—I do not know whether the member for Perth wishes to make some statements at this time. I wish to make only a few brief concluding remarks.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I called the member for Mitchell because of the custom of moving, figuratively, from one side of the House to the other. He has the call.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I have no objection to that, but the debate is far from concluded in my mind.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I recognised the member for Mitchell for the obvious traditional reason.13:35:007201Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I want to briefly refer to the remarks made by the previous speaker, the member for Bonython, and indicate that I do not accept the argument of the peer review process being the only criteria as compared with a sunset clause. I believe that we as parliamentarians need to see the involvement of the parliament in this process; hence the amendments.I am responding to the remarks by the member for Lowe, who indicates that he would prefer to see some words imposing more immediacy on the review, if conducted by the parliament. I am attracted to his proposals and to the words that he has presented. It would not be my purpose to delay the House by withdrawing my amendment and circulating a fresh amendment, interposing the words suggested by the member for Lowe, because I think that he and I have an understanding and that there is a clear understanding of our intention in Hansard. I suggest to him that he and I seek out a friendly senatorial colleague who may be willing to consider both his and my amendment in a consolidated form. If that were to happen, his objective would be achieved. If he is content with that, I would be content.I thank you, Mr Speaker, for being in the chair for much of this committee stage of the debate today, and for the way in which you have been able to assist us to come to the conclusions—some of them smooth and some of them not so smooth, but always the democratic process has been working.13:37:007201Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—This is the second time I have had the opportunity to speak on this clause of the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002. I will take up where I left off. First, I must say that I am entirely bemused that, on the one hand, the member for Mitchell says that this is the most important amendment that he or anyone else has moved but, on the other hand, not wanting to delay the House for some reason, he does not want to engage in a conversation about it.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—If that is an invitation, I will continue.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—It is an invitation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Perth is aware that those sorts of invitations are at my behest, not his. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—When I concluded my earlier remarks, I was making the point that, before one can contemplate whether there is merit or not in the amendment moved by the member for Mitchell, one has to very clearly understand the basis of the review provision of the bill as presented to the House. I firstly made the point that it is proposed that the review be independent, that it be conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council and that it must be undertaken by the same persons who conduct the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act review. I raised a question with the member for Mitchell, and I would like to get his response at some stage, about the danger that his amendment poses, because it is clear there will now be a dysfunction between the review conducted under his proposal and the review undertaken by the persons who undertake the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act review in the event that his amendment is successful.I then made the point that the independent review has to report to the Council of Australian Governments. When my time expired on the last occasion, I was coming to the point—which was picked up by the member for Bonython—of this question: in the first instance, who is best placed to initiate this review? I think that the bill rather than the amendment has got it right: the persons best placed to initiate this review are, in the first instance, those who are the regulators, the licensing authority, under the regime as proposed by the legislation. In other words, if we want a review to see the application of the act after it has been in operation for a couple of years, where is the best starting point? The best starting point in my view is not a parliamentary committee, the composition of which we, on the wishes of the member for Mitchell, would determine today, but is the people who have the day in, day out industry, professional, medical, ethical and legal considerations. What is then proposed is that that review be done in consultation with COAG. Why is that important? That is important because what the parliament is seeking to effect—if the bill, including clause 61, is accepted by the parliament—is not a Commonwealth scheme but a uniform, nationally consistent Commonwealth-state-territory scheme. Subclause (4) of clause 61 then goes on to say that the persons undertaking the review must consider and report on the scope and operation of the act `taking into account ... developments in technology in relation to assisted reproductive technology'—I have no difficulty with that; that is obviously sensible—`developments in medical research and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications of such research'—again, that is clearly sensible—and `community standards'. Requiring the independent review to consider community standards is, of course, another sensible and necessary starting point, because what the parliament is seeking to do here is to reflect community standards. In the absence of a legislative regime we are seeking to reflect a community standard which, if you get to the hard point of the conversation in this House, and I suspect in the Senate, is that stem cell research can be conducted on spare or excess embryos produced for the purposes of IVF. Subclause 5 goes on to say that the report must contain recommendations about the amendments to the act, if any, and subclause 6 says the person undertaking the review `must consult ... the Commonwealth and the States ... and a broad range of persons with expertise or experience'.In terms of the member for Mitchell's amendment, some of those things are echoed—and that is not said critically, it is obviously sensible. In that respect, whilst the member for Mitchell refers to the proposed joint parliamentary committee doing those things, subclause 4 of his amendment mirrors subclause 4 of the bill and subclause 7 of his amendment mirrors subclause 6 of the bill. But where is the difference? The difference firstly is in this deficiency: the member for Mitchell's review process would bear no relationship to the review in respect of the prohibition of human cloning. So there is a dysfunction between the outcome if the member for Mitchell's amendment is adopted and that proposed by the bill. That is the first deficiency. (Time expired)Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney—Attorney-General) (1.42 p.m.)—I move:That the question be now put.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I would remind all members, who ought not to need a reminder, that the moment the tellers are appointed they are obliged to be seated in their places. If the member for Grayndler and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs do not want to be named and expelled from the chamber, they will take their seats immediately. I warn the member for Grayndler!Question put.13:47:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 85Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bevis, A.R.Billson, B.F.Bishop, J.I.Burke, A.E.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Ellis, A.L.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Ferguson, M.J.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Irwin, J.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kemp, D.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, P.E.Lawrence, C.M.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.Macklin, J.L.McArthur, S. *McClelland, R.B.McGauran, P.J.Melham, D.Moylan, J. E.Murphy, J. P.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Plibersek, T.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Quick, H.V. *Roxon, N.L.Schultz, A.Secker, P.D.Sidebottom, P.S.Slipper, P.N. *Smith, A.D.H.Snowdon, W.E.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Tanner, L.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.38Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Cameron, R.A.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A. *Edwards, G.J.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Katter, R.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Mossfield, F.W.O'Connor, B.P.O'Connor, G.M.Price, L.R.S.Ripoll, B.F.Ruddock, P.M.Sawford, R.W. *Smith, S.F.Swan, W.M.Thomson, K.J.Vale, D.S.Windsor, A.H.C.Question agreed to.Question put:That the amendment (Mr Cadman's) be agreed to.13:56:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 35Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Ciobo, S.M.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Forrest, J.A. *Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.King, P.E.Lloyd, J.E.McGauran, P.J.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P. *Neville, P.C.O'Connor, G.M.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Pyne, C.Schultz, A.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N. *Ticehurst, K.V.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Windsor, A.H.C.84Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Billson, B.F.Bishop, J.I.Burke, A.E.Charles, R.E.Cobb, J.K.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Dutton, P.C.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Entsch, W.G.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gallus, C.A.Gash, J.George, J.Georgiou, P.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Haase, B.W.Hall, J.G.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Johnson, M.A.Kemp, D.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Lawrence, C.M.Ley, S.P.Macfarlane, I.E.Macklin, J.L.McArthur, S. *McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Prosser, G.D.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Ruddock, P.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, A.D.H.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Swan, W.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, K.J.Tollner, D.W.Tuckey, C.W.Vamvakinou, M.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Zahra, C.J.Question negatived.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! Members please take their seats. It being past 2.00 p.m., the proceedings are interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The proceedings may be resumed at a later hour.Questions Without Notice7204720414:05:007204Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is addressed to the Foreign Minister. I refer to comments made by the Prime Minister from London where he said that he was very familiar with the information contained in the UK dossier on Iraq. Minister, if this is true, why didn't your statement to the parliament last week contain some of the specific details on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program such as the information about Iraq's attempts to acquire nuclear materials and longer range missile systems? Given that Australia is party to allied intelligence sharing arrangements, why didn't you seek to have the information declassified prior to your statement to the parliament last week? Why weren't you prepared to take the Australian people into your confidence?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will conclude his question.DT4Mr CREAN—Why are you now relying on the British government to make the case to the Australian people?7204Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The answer is very simple. Of course, we did in the statement provide a great deal of information but, further than that, it is not the job of the Australian government to declassify British intelligence material; it is the job of the British government. In the extraordinarily unlikely event that the Leader of the Opposition should become Prime Minister of this country—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister has the call.4G4Mr DOWNER—if he were to declassify British intelligence information and table it in the parliament, it would terminate our intelligence relationship with Britain and I do not propose to do that.84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for McMillan! I have already issued a warning to the member for Grayndler.720414:07:007204Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and follows the answer to the previous question. Would the minister inform the House of the government's response to the release yesterday of a dossier by the UK government detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and human rights abuses?7204Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question—it is a serious question and a good question. I know the honourable member has a great interest in these issues and, of course, in foreign policy questions more generally—he learnt in a very good place.The government welcomes the document tabled by Prime Minister Blair yesterday in the British parliament and released publicly as a significant contribution to the case concerning Iraq's threat to international peace and security. I think this document has put beyond reasonable doubt the fact that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction—that he has biological weapons, that he has chemical weapons—and that he intends not only to retain those capabilities but that he intends to use those capabilities.Specifically, I would inform the honourable member that the dossier notes that Iraq has continued to produce chemical and biological agents, has pursued illegal procurement programs of controlled materials and has developed mobile laboratories for military use. It has covertly tried to acquire technology and materials that could be used in nuclear weapons production. If sanctions were removed or proved ineffective, it would take Iraq five years or perhaps more to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon but only one or two years to produce a nuclear weapon if it acquired fissile material from foreign sources. It retained up to 20 ballistic missiles with a range of 650 kilometres capable of carrying chemical or biological warheads and has pursued illegal procurement programs to develop long-range missiles in breach of the United Nations imposed restriction of 150 kilometres. In addition, the dossier reveals preparations by Iraq to conceal evidence of these weapons from renewed inspections.The dossier is based on, amongst other sources, British intelligence collection—they are not the only sources—and the House should be aware that the British intelligence services are particularly extensive and effective. The dossier elaborates on a number of points that I made in my speech to the House last week and, importantly, is consistent with the views of the Australian intelligence community. Of course, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his earlier question, we obviously have a very close relationship with both the British and the United States intelligence communities.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Why don't you declassify that?4G4Mr DOWNER—The Leader of the Opposition wonders why we don't declassify British and American intelligence material.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—No, yours.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The minister will respond to the question asked, not to interjections.4G4Mr DOWNER—There are 150 members of this House; I think 149 would be able to work out the answer to that. As the Prime Minister said yesterday after his meeting with Prime Minister Blair, the government warmly welcomes the initiative by the British government to produce the dossier. I foreshadowed yesterday that I would make the dossier available to the House. It is available on the Internet and there are substantial media summaries of it, but let me table it so that members will be able to go to the Table Office and obtain a copy of the document. Whatever members' views may be on this question, I would commend to them real and genuine study of these sorts of documents because, in addition to the issues that I just mentioned, this document has quite extensive analysis of Iraq's simply appalling human rights record. Saddam Hussein's human rights record is, without any doubt whatsoever, one of the very worst the world has seen in a very long time, and this document has very dramatic examples of that.720514:12:007205Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Would he explain why the government has decided not to renew the contract of the Secretary to the Department of Defence, Dr Allan Hawke? In this time of great international uncertainty, what assurance can you give to our 50,000 service men and women about their leadership, given that, since the start of the Howard government, the ADF and the defence department have endured the comings and goings of no less than four defence ministers and four defence secretaries?7205Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge that this is a matter of importance and of very great interest to all in the community at a time of considerable challenge in our own region and internationally. Let me first say that Dr Allan Hawke will shortly fulfil a three-year contract as the Secretary of the Department of Defence. He deserves—and I have put this down elsewhere—recognition and appreciation for his role in developing the defence white paper, in taking forward the new Defence Capability Plan and in undertaking major internal restructuring. I also want to say that nobody can have any doubts about the qualities, the depth, the experience—in diplomatic as well as military circles—of his successor, Ric Smith. He is highly regarded and very competent to fulfil the onerous tasks that will be expected of him in his new role.When it comes to our serving men and women, I have no doubt that they know they enjoy the very strong support of the government, I hope of all people in this place, and of the Australian people for the outstanding way in which they have performed in recent years. I think knowing that they have the strong support of the government and the Australian people is important to the defence forces.In addition to that, it is highly appropriate that we mention the recent CDF, Chris Barrie, who fulfilled his role outstandingly, and the new CDF, Peter Cosgrove, and the team around him. You could not ask for people who inspire greater confidence and greater security in their leadership and greater certainty for the future in terms of people knowing that their interests will be well looked after at the same time as the nation looks to them to discharge their very important responsibilities.720614:15:007206Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House as to which aspects of the dossier on Iraq released yesterday by the government of the UK contain new information?7206Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for La Trobe for his question. He has shown a very serious and informed interest in this whole issue of Iraq. I appreciate the way he has approached the whole issue and I know his constituents do.There has been some commentary here and there—not so much in Australia, but elsewhere—that the dossier released by the Blair government yesterday did not contain any new information. This is a slogan that you hear from time to time. Regardless of what documents are produced and what speeches are made, there always seem to be people who say they do not contain new information. I am not sure whether some of the people who make those claims have done a great deal of study.I thought that the honourable member, having asked the question, would be interested to know that it is our assessment that this document does contain additional key evidence which was released publicly for the first time. The House might be interested to know what it is. First of all, in relation to chemical and biological weapons, the document says that Iraq is already taking steps to prevent United Nations weapons inspectors finding evidence of its chemical and biological weapons programs, including through the concealment of documentation. It says that the Iraqi military is able to deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so and that it is willing to do so against its own Shia population. The dossier says that a good deal of the personnel involved in Iraq's earlier chemical and biological weapons programs have remained in the country. It goes on to identify a number of very specific facilities as possibly associated with the production of chemical and biological weapons. My point here is this: I am advised by the Australian intelligence community that none of that material has previously been made public. The Australian intelligence community has also advised me that, in relation to the nuclear weapons program, the dossier reveals—it has not been revealed before—that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq, however, has no active civil nuclear program or nuclear power plants and thus no legitimate use for or reason to acquire uranium. The document also details recent attempts by Iraq to purchase various pieces of equipment potentially useable in a gas centrifuge enrichment program for the production of nuclear weapons.In relation to Iraq's ballistic missile program, the Australian intelligence community advises me that this document, amongst the many things that it has drawn attention to—and of course we spoke about some of themin this House last week—has revealed new information. It revealed that an Indian firm was involved in assisting Iraq's ballistic missile program as well as Iraqi procurement efforts to acquire propellant chemicals for its ballistic missiles from foreign sources.As honourable members know, a lot of the material that was released in the dossier was material that I had alluded to or spelled out in my statement to the House last week. But there was a lot of new material in the speech, and I have given the House some examples of what was completely new. It does put paid to an argument you hear every time any major statement is made on this question of Iraq: that there is no new material. There is a lot of new material coming out.I was asked on a television program last night whether the British should reveal the intelligence sources of this information. Most members of the House would understand that, if the British were to reveal their sources of this information, it would of course destroy their sources, not only as sources but possibly as human beings as well. I do not think it is a reasonable expectation that we would ask the British government to do that.720714:19:007207Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the minister representing the Treasurer. Isn't it the case that in 1990, at the time of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the then Labor government imposed a price freeze on petrol to protect motorists? What special powers does the government intend giving the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to prevent petrol price rip-offs arising from high oil prices?7207Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—In 1991, there was a war against Iraq. The point that this government has been making over and over again—and it is a point entirely relevant to this question—is that the question of a war against Iraq is a hypothetical question. Nobody at this stage has made a decision to take military action against Iraq. One could hypothesise endlessly about the impact of the totality of this issue on oil prices. For example, you could hypothesise that, if there were to be military action taken against Iraq, oil prices would increase. And you could hypothesise that, if that military action were quickly successful and sanctions were lifted against Iraq, or if there was not military action against Iraq but Iraq complied with all of its obligations and disarmed—and this is a point that the House might like to reflect on in relation to the question of the Leader of the Opposition—sanctions would be lifted against Iraq. If sanctions were lifted against Iraq, Iraq would be able to increase substantially its oil production and its oil exports, and that would lead to a very substantial fall, at least on the face of it, in global oil prices. Inevitably there will be some increases in oil prices—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was directed to the foreign minister in his role as Acting Treasurer. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The point of order is?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—It concerned what powers he would consider giving to the ACCC.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Is the point of order about relevance?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Yes, the point of order is about relevance. He has not addressed the ACCC at all.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister was being entirely relevant to the question asked. The minister will continue.4G4Mr DOWNER—The question is based on the premise of conflict in Iraq leading to massive increases in oil prices. My point is one that the House might like to reflect on: if Iraq complies with the Security Council resolution and disarms, or if disarmament were to hypothetically take place in some other circumstance, sanctions would be lifted; and, if sanctions were to be lifted, oil prices would fall very substantially. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 145—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Are you contending that you are not going to hear my point of order on relevance?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am indicating to the member for Fraser that standing order 145 obliges the Speaker to ensure that the minister is being relevant to the question asked.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. I have not concluded my statement. I had already ruled, little more than 30 seconds ago, that the minister was being entirely relevant. Nothing he subsequently said was in any way divergent from the remarks he made prior to my ruling. He is in order and I recognise him.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on the point of order, with respect, the standing orders also require you to hear points of order. They are quite explicit with regard to that matter—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. He is well aware that I have enunciated, with more detail than I am obliged, standing order 145. There is no way that I am going to determine that the minister was other than relevant to the question asked.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, with respect, on another point of order: the standing orders—not standing order 145—also specify that when a point of order is raised it must be heard. That is what the standing orders say.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Explicitly they do, Mr Speaker, and I have the right to raise my point of order as to why I believe that the minister is not relevant, and then you are entitled to rule. But you are not entitled not to hear me.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. The member for Fraser knows the standing orders as well as anyone in this chamber, and I respect that. The member for Fraser is also well aware of the fact that, when I asked him what his point of order was, he specifically said—as the Hansard will show—`standing order 145'. I had so ruled, I stand by my ruling, and the minister has the call.4G4Mr DOWNER—Mr Speaker—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order relates to your previous ruling against the member for Fraser, where you ruled that he did not have the right to take a point of order, given that you had previously ruled my point of order out of order. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Are you ruling—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have required the member for Lilley to resume his seat. He has no choice. Now let me make it perfectly clear for the member for Lilley: I had indicated that, under standing order 145, I had already ruled, so the minister was entirely in order. I will, of course, always hear a point of order. In this instance, the member for Fraser had indicated that it was under 145. I had so ruled. The ruling stands.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am on my feet! I have made it perfectly clear that the minister is in order under standing order 145. That was the point of order raised by the member for Fraser. The minister has the call. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order under standing order 100, which states:If any objection is taken to any ruling of the Speaker, such objection must be taken at once ...I am taking that objection because it is my right to take objection to a ruling you gave about a previous ruling. On what grounds can you possibly deny any member of this House taking a point of order on a ruling that you have given?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is well aware that I indicated that standing order 145, the standing order raised by the member for Fraser, did not apply in this instance, because the minister was being relevant. There can be no dispute with that ruling, and so standing order 100 does not apply, because the point on which I had ruled was in fact clear: the member was raising a point of order on relevance. I determined that the foreign minister was being relevant to the question asked. The foreign minister has the call.4G4Mr DOWNER—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate being asked a question on petrol prices. On Neil Mitchell's program this morning on 3AW, the Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Petroleum was asked by Neil Mitchell, `So are we right to be worrying about petrol prices at the moment?' I think the answer to this question by the executive director is relevant to the way the question here was formulated. Mr Nye said, `No, I think at the moment there is a bit of scaremongering out there.' And I think we know who he might be referring to. He went on to say, `But, you know, the supply situation in the world is a little different to what it was 10 years ago.' Obviously the Trade Practices Act and the ACCC provide powers, but at the moment the situation is that there has been some increase in oil prices, no doubt partly driven by concern about conflict in the Middle East. Nevertheless, as I said earlier to the House, Iraq potentially supplies something like 10.9 per cent of the world's oil. That is a very substantial proportion of the world's oil reserves. In the event of sanctions eventually being lifted, I think the market expectation would be a reduction in global oil prices.720914:29:007209Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Acting Prime Minister inform the House of the important work of the National Land and Water Resources Audit and its value to my electorate of Riverina and to all Australians, particularly those involved with natural resource planning and management?7209Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for her question and note her very real interest in this matter, given the very vast natural resources in her electorate. I am very pleased that my colleagues the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage have released today the final report of the National Land and Water Resources Audit, which I think is probably one of the highest, if not the highest, quality documents of its sort in the world.I might have a little moment of pride in this if I may, because it originated with a discovery by me, as a shadow minister in 1995 on a visit to Queensland, that no-one knew what the true state of land clearing was in that state at that time. I was astonished. There was no accurate way of assessing whether it was the 100,000 hectares claimed by some sectors, the million hectares a year claimed by the Greens or the assumption made by the government at the time that it was somewhere between the two; no-one knew. It struck me that it was a good idea to do something about this. So after six years of very hard work we have now seen the delivery of a coalition commitment that provides an independent, comprehensive and nationwide appraisal of Australia's natural resources and their uses—a tremendously valuable resource for the nation.This material summarises the condition and management opportunities for Australia's soils, waters, rivers, estuaries and biodiversity. It will be invaluable in its ability to assist natural resource managers to understand the challenges they face and to identify workable and lasting solutions in a timely way, allowing for efficient deployment of available resources and, I believe, the most economical outcomes as well. It is something that I think will in the future be looked back on as an incredibly important foundation stone in the management of our natural resources right across this vast but ancient and very fragile landscape that we call home. The audit report focuses on rural and remote Australia. Those opposite often proclaim their green credentials, but here is perhaps the most valuable resource material ever put together by a government for the management of our environment and its sustainable use, particularly by the nation's farmers and water users. It focuses on eight key themes or issues—namely, water, salinity, vegetation, rangelands, agriculture, biodiversity, rivers and catchments, and opportunities for natural resource managers.This exercise has cost in the order of $35 million. At the time I remember thinking that was a lot of money for this sort of work. I suspect that in the future we will look back on it and say that it was an absolute bargain. It is likely to do an unbelievable and incalculable amount of good in terms of the efficient and timely management of our resources, not just for us but also for future generations of Australians.721014:30:007210McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer: can the minister confirm that, under the transitional arrangements for the changes to Commonwealth-state financial relations, no state or territory will receive a net benefit from any windfall GST revenue this financial year? Can the minister also confirm that a 30 per cent increase in the oil price from the $23 a barrel figure in the budget to today's price—not some hypothetical future increase but today's price—of more than $30US a barrel would increase Commonwealth revenue from the GST and petroleum resource rent tax by around $600 million? Isn't this why you are refusing to act on petrol prices?7210Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Yesterday I was asked a question about the revenue implications of any increases in oil and, therefore, petrol prices—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You got it wrong!4G4Mr DOWNER—I did not get it wrong.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You did get it wrong!4G4Mr DOWNER—I would hardly turn to the Leader of the Opposition for advice on economics! I can absolutely assure the House that, of all the people in this parliament, he would be pretty much the last person I would turn to for that sort of advice. If ever there were an economic illiterate, it would be the man sitting there.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister, you will respond to the question.4G4Mr DOWNER—Mr Speaker, the only point I would add to what I said yesterday is that changes in fuel prices, particularly those—as in this case—brought about by increases in global oil prices, have significant impacts right around the economy, and it is very hard to assess what the net revenue impact would be for the Commonwealth. Certainly, Treasury is in no position to make any assessment at this stage about the overall net macroeconomic impact as well as revenue impact of any spike in oil prices. As I explained in answer to an earlier question, oil prices could fall later in the financial year as much as they have increased in the early part of the financial year, and that, amongst other things, is going to depend very much—in fact, overwhelmingly—on how the question of Iraq is ultimately resolved. So to answer a question about the net revenue implications of any spike in oil prices is something that the Treasury is not able to do at this time. But as I pointed out yesterday, on a six-monthly basis under this government, the government produces not just a budget but also a Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, and any revenue implications one way or the other, whatever they may be, will obviously be taken into consideration in that Outlook.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a budget table establishing clearly that no state or territory will receive any financial benefit from an increase in GST revenue.Leave not granted.Distinguished Visitors721014:36:007210SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On behalf of the House, I extend a welcome this afternoon to the Hon. Murray McCully, opposition spokesman on immigration in the New Zealand parliament and former New Zealand Minister for Tourism, Housing and Local Government.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice7210721014:37:007210Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House of the success of the government's Indigenous employment policy? In particular, how has corporate Australia taken up the challenge of getting more Indigenous people into private sector jobs?7210Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. I appreciate the support he gives to all the government's Indigenous employment programs. As the House would know, Indigenous unemployment is one of Australia's most intractable problems. Indigenous people comprise some two per cent of our population, some six per cent of Australia's unemployed, some eight per cent of intensive assistance commencements and, I am afraid, just five per cent of intensive assistance outcomes. I am pleased to say that the performance of the Job Network with respect to Indigenous Australians is now improving, and improving quite strongly. The percentage of Indigenous Australians participating in intensive assistance in work three months after leaving the program is 30 per cent higher now than it was 12 months ago. I am also pleased to say that, in the last financial year, the number of Indigenous job matching placements has increased by 30 per cent.In recent times, much Indigenous employment has been confined to jobs with Aboriginal organisations. If reconciliation is to be a reality, we need to see more Aboriginal people finding jobs in the private sector. Since the Indigenous Employment Program commenced in 1999, I can say that my department has negotiated 18,000 structured training and employment program places, and more than 80 per cent of those have been with private sector organisations. Some 6,000 Indigenous Australians have received wage assistance and more than 85 per cent of those have received that assistance to enter private sector jobs. More than 60 major Australian businesses have joined the government's Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project, and those companies have negotiated some 4,000 structured training and employment program places with my department.As the member for Leichhardt well knows, my department has just entered a whole of government partnership agreement to be the lead agency coordinating the delivery of federal government services to Indigenous people in Cape York. I am very pleased that this has happened. I take this opportunity to congratulate Noel Pearson for the leadership he has provided, not just to his own people but to every Australian interested in breaking the cycle of disadvantage and despair.721114:40:007211Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, are you aware that the Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Petroleum, Mr Brian Nye—a person whose comments were endorsed by the Acting Treasurer earlier in question time today—on Friday confirmed his recollection that, at a meeting with you, you made it clear that the Prime Minister would not agree to a 10 per cent limit on ethanol in petrol if it affected the operations of Manildra? When did the Prime Minister, or someone on his behalf, convey this view to you?7211Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I had a meeting with representatives of the Australian Institute of Petroleum on 21 August 2002. They asked to see me because there was speculation at the time that the government was considering a mandate on the percentage of ethanol that should be included in our liquid fuel mix. They expressed to me their concerns about such a proposal, and subsequently made suggestions as to how the industry might be able to cooperate with the government to achieve our stated election commitment of including up to 350 million litres of ethanol in the fuel mix by 2010.The fuel industry made it quite clear to me that they were unhappy about proposals to incorporate ethanol in the fuel mix. I indicated firmly that the government had made commitments in an election context in that regard. I also made it clear that in the record that my office made of that particular meeting—incidentally, it was recorded in shorthand by a staff member, so it was in considerable detail—there was absolutely no reference to the sorts of statements suggested by Mr Nye. I know that Mr Nye made some comments to the effect that he had taken notes at the meeting. We did not observe him taking notes at the meeting, so they must have been quite brief. He acknowledged that his memo was only sent the following day, so it was obviously reconstructed some time later.In answer to the specific question from the member for Brisbane, let me say that at no time has the Prime Minister or anyone else said to me that decisions in relation to the ethanol mix would be dependent upon the way in which those arrangements affected Manildra. The Prime Minister never said that to me at any time.721214:43:007212Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the government's new partnership initiative with states, territories and Indigenous communities? How will this improve the social and economic situation of Indigenous Australians?7212Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. The member for Grey represents a very large number of Indigenous Australians in the state of South Australia, many from the central desert areas of the country. He is well aware of the very special needs that they have and, of course, the aspirations of the government to be able to address those matters. Today is a very timely occasion on which to raise these issues because the Commonwealth has been working with local Indigenous people and state and territory governments to develop a new approach that shares responsibility between all of the parties for improving the situation with Indigenous communities around Australia.In April this year, the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, agreed to identify up to 10 Indigenous communities to participate in a whole of government approach to improve service delivery and to address those needs. There will be at least one site or project in each state and territory jurisdiction and it is, of course, subject to the agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories as well as the relevant people in the communities in which these programs may be conducted. This new initiative requires that we work as partners—as joint venturers—with communities, non-government agencies, and state and territory governments.As part of this process, we are listening very closely to what communities want and are seeking to address those in ways which are meaningful to them. The approach requires us to move away from a `one size fits all' notion. Government agencies that are bound to deliver programs within their own parameters often do not see appropriate linkages with other programs delivered by other authorities and very often the priorities that communities want are ignored in a process where decisions are made in silos or in isolation.The view of the government in regard to programs and traditional bureaucratic boundaries, which are the main obstacle to getting better outcomes, is that we ought to find new ways of moving around them, and one way in which this has been sought is through these new partnership initiatives. The secretaries of key Commonwealth departments and agencies have been meeting together personally, as have ministers, to oversee the implementation of this initiative. They have agreed to set up sponsors for different projects and have set up a task force that reports to the secretary of my department.At the moment, the communities that will be participating are the subject of discussion and we hope that the Prime Minister, premiers, ministers and chief ministers of the territories will be able to announce some of those developments. But the Prime Minister and Premier Beattie were happy today for the announcement to proceed in relation to Queensland and, as has already been mentioned by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Cape York area has been so identified. The Queensland Premier has made an announcement on that, as has the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in this place and earlier at a joint press conference with me, which was attended by Mr Pearson and Mr Richard Ah Mat representing the Cape York partnerships.I certainly hope that we will be able to make further announcements in a matter of weeks about the other areas in which we are working. It is evidence of a very high level of cooperation between the states, territories, the Commonwealth and Indigenous communities about achieving an integrated approach, a partnership approach, to being able to address the issues. I hope the issues will be addressed in ways in which the communities themselves will be wholly supportive, because they have had a role in determining the way in which those decisions will be implemented and the way in which they might affect them.721314:48:007213McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Did you discuss at your meeting with the Institute of Petroleum the Prime Minister's attitude to a 10 per cent cap on ethanol?7213Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I have not got anything really to add to the answer I gave previously. At that meeting we most assuredly discussed the question of ethanol and petrol mixes. That was the specific reason why the institute asked to speak to me. We discussed a range of issues that were associated with our campaign and our election commitment to deliver a larger percentage of ethanol in our fuel mix.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I very deliberately expressed the question narrowly and tightly so that the minister could not avoid answering it. At your meeting, did you discuss the Prime Minister's attitude?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser is aware that the only power given to the Speaker over answers is that the answer be relevant to the question. There is no way any comment made by the minister could be deemed as other than relevant to the question.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Except that he is not answering it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—If the member for Fraser seeks to amend the standing orders, there are other facilities in the House to enable him to do so and they have been there through successive governments. The minister has the call.GT4Mr TRUSS—I said in my answer to the last question that I have no recollection of the Prime Minister ever having discussed with me his attitude to the question of the effect of these sorts of decisions on Manildra. Since he had never discussed it with me, how could I possibly have expressed a view on that matter to the Institute of Petroleum?721314:51:007213Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister advise the House of the details of the sugar reform memorandum of understanding signed between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments today? What benefits will this agreement have for sugar growers in my electorate of Hinkler and more widely?7213Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question and acknowledge his particular interest in the sugar industry and his determination to ensure that the industry has the capacity to grow and prosper in the years ahead. I can report to the House today that, in the company of the Queensland Minister for State Development, the Hon. Tom Barton, and the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Henry Palaszczuk, an agreement was signed between the Commonwealth and the federal government to work cooperatively together to endeavour to achieve a more vibrant and prosperous future for the Australian sugar industry. We have undertaken through this memorandum of understanding to jointly look at ways in which we can encourage innovation in the industry, improve the productivity and profitability of the industry and also take care of the immediate emergency needs of the industry, particularly in providing some welfare support as farmers face the current very difficult situation.The Commonwealth has agreed to provide emergency income support, some assistance for farmers who choose to leave the industry, some support with planting subsidies for their crops and funding for regional initiatives to support industry change and adjustment. On the other hand, the Queensland government has agreed to provide $30 million to assist in regional change management, to look at an innovation fund to support new practices in the industry and also to provide concessional loans for farm build-ups. This package will be largely delivered at a regional level, with close involvement with the local community and local industry. It is absolutely essential that these measures be delivered in cooperation with the sugar industry, and I will be meeting with sugar industry representatives this afternoon to continue that process. Centrelink will deliver the income support payments from 1 October this year. Growers can register their interest in applying for these measures immediately by contacting Centrelink on 1800 050 585. Farmers and others in the industry who have immediate needs to support their families in these difficult times will be able to receive this support from 1 October.It is vital that all proposals to secure the viability of the industry for the future are properly considered at this time. It is obvious that there is potential for the industry to diversify somewhat. There is a range of new products which potentially could provide a new income source for the sugar industry. Ethanol production, bioplastics and a range of chemicals and other products that can be extracted from the sugar industry all offer significant potential to improve the viability of and the opportunities for the sugar industry. The governments have also agreed that there should be a joint approach to regulatory change, including looking at what elements of the Queensland Sugar Act might impede efficiencies or innovation. We are going to look particularly at the production area system, the bargaining system and the acquisition and vesting arrangements. It is vital that all of the proposals to change the acquisition, vesting and ownership arrangements of sugar be considered in this context. In this regard, I particularly acknowledge the honourable member for Dawson, who has put forward a number of innovative proposals, particularly in this area of vesting, which I think are particularly constructive and will be considered as a part of this process. These proposals will be among the issues to be dealt with in determining what arrangements should be put in place for the industry in the future. Her proposals are quite radical and therefore important in this context. They will undoubtedly provide an important element in the consideration of the future arrangements for the industry. There will be a further communique to be signed on the legislative change issues once the details have been agreed on how we can effectively secure the regulatory framework necessary for a vibrant and innovative industry.The industry has faced considerable difficulties over recent times. There is a determination by the state and federal governments to work constructively together to achieve a better future for sugar farmers and the regional communities in Bundaberg, up the Queensland coast and into New South Wales and in Western Australia where the sugar industry has been so important and has contributed so much to our nation.721414:56:007214Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Acting Prime Minister recall that, on 28 August, the Prime Minister informed the House, in response to a question from me, that he would seek advice on a $46.5 million grant awarded to the research consortium led by Professor Alan Trounson? As the debate around research involving embryos belongs to the whole of parliament and not just the government, are you now able to outline that advice? Do you agree that the detailed advice should be publicly available?7214Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I do recall the Prime Minister giving that undertaking. My understanding of the current situation is that the Prime Minister has had preliminary advice and has sought a little further advice. Beyond that, I can only say that I will seek any further details that are available now and provide them to you in good faith. As to any further disclosures that the Prime Minister may care to make or not make, I do not feel in a position to commit him at this point in time.721414:58:007214Ticehurst, Kenneth, MPMr TICEHURST00ANFDobellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister advise the House what the coalition government is doing to increase the number of exporters? How will growth in the number of exporters contribute to job creation and the Australian economy?7214Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Dobell for his question and recognise his enthusiasm on behalf of, particularly, the small and medium size enterprises in his electorate of Dobell in terms of getting into the export marketplace. It is well known that the coalition's policy at the last election was to target the doubling of the number of exporters in Australia by 2006. To achieve that strategy we have embarked upon a number of policy objectives: firstly, our very aggressive and ambitious stance in terms of opening up markets across the world and, in particular, removing impediments to our exports across the world; and, secondly, but just as important, our trade promotion strategy through Austrade. The new managing director and the board have undertaken a review of the offshore structure of the organisation, announced today, refocusing into the critical areas of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South-East Asia, the Indian Ocean, North Asia and the Americas—key areas for focus with regional management.We also announced, in the election, our commitment to increase the number of TradeStart offices. In fact, it will go beyond our commitment made during the election campaign, going from the 24 offices that did exist through to 51 offices—and I know that the member for Dobell makes good use of the office in his area on the central coast in terms of assisting exporters who want to get in for the first time. So we are looking at increasing business community awareness of the benefits of export. We are looking at new exporter development programs targeting so-called `born globals' in the biotech, ICT and services sector and bringing potential customers to Australia to interface with potential exporters. The strategy being undertaken by the government and Austrade is about increasing the capacity of our exports, which will increase the value and volume of our exports, which will obviously add significantly to the contribution that exporting has already made to the jobs growth in Australia over the last six years of one million jobs.721515:00:007215Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware that Indigenous unemployment is 23 per cent and that this figure does not include Indigenous people participating in the Community Development Employment Program, an ATSIC-managed Work for the Dole program? Is he also aware from recent reports that most of the recent increase in Indigenous employment can be accounted for by increased participation in the CDEP scheme, which has been estimated to account for between 15 and 25 per cent of employed Indigenous persons, and that Indigenous unemployment rates would be over 40 per cent if that scheme did not exist? Given these appalling figures, can you confirm, Minister, that federal government departments, including Centrelink, now have a practice of employing Indigenous people not through the Public Service but on the CDEP scheme, which makes them work for their benefits, as we have discovered in a recent answer to a question on notice? Minister, can you explain why Indigenous Australians are not given the same remuneration and employment benefits as non-Indigenous employees in the Public Service? Also, will you be using this discriminatory employment method in your Cape York partnership announced today, the question for your reference?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Wind it up.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Parramatta. He seems to feel he has the right simply to interject. If he wishes to draw the Speaker's attention, he will rise and seek the call.7215Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I accept that, as the member for Fremantle says, Indigenous unemployment is terribly, horribly high; I accept that. I also accept that Indigenous unemployment would be even higher but for the 30,000 or so Indigenous people who are employed under Community Development Employment Program jobs; I accept that. But the last thing I want to do is make the Indigenous unemployment situation worse rather than better, and that is why I do not propose to tamper with the CDEP scheme.721515:03:007215Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. I ask the minister: will he inform the House of the outlook for Australia's resource industries; what action is the government taking to encourage direct investment in this sector; and is the minister aware of alternative policies?7215Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I thank the member for Wannon for his question. Not only is he a great supporter of regional Australia but he also takes a great interest in the development of resources in regional Australia and has a very significant mineral sands province currently under exploration in the northern part of his electorate.ABARE predicts that exports of resources and petroleum will rise by four per cent in the next financial year. In terms of dollars, increasing to some $60 billion worth of exports, accounting—as I am sure the Minister for Trade would agree—for about 40 per cent of our exports. This government is keen to ensure that those exports continue to grow, and we are currently investigating a number of ways in which we can improve and increase the amount of exploration done in Australia. I am pleased to announce today that we have in fact released six new exploration permits for the resource industry, which will result in an extra $100 million in exploration being done in Australia over the period ahead.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a gross abuse. To rise to announce a government policy is an abuse of the standing orders, and there are other occasions for doing that.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will listen closely to what the minister says. If he is announcing government policy, I will intervene. The minister is aware of the standing orders. He may elaborate on a specific government program but not announce government policy.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—Mr Speaker, if I am going too quickly for the member opposite, I will slow down.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the question.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—We have announced today the approval of six exploration permits. That is not policy; that is action. That is worth $100 million to Australia's economy in terms of spending on exploration. Am I going too quickly?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister!WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—Yes, Mr Speaker. We do have an action agenda, and I know that those opposite would aspire to have even half as much policy as we have on the resources sector. They would aspire just to have action, let alone an action agenda. Whilst they sit there looking for anything that would make up a policy—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Where are they?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Hunter.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—Go and read the press release, Member for Hunter.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Action man.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Where are the leases?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Batman! The member for Hunter! The minister has the call.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—I thank the member for Hunter for drawing my and the media's attention to my press release today. I am sure, in view of the fact that it will create $100 million worth of exploration in Australia, that it will now get an excellent run in tonight's media and, on that basis, merely highlight what the Howard government is doing to ensure that Australia's mineral and resources sector moves forward.721615:07:007216Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm that many hundreds of thousands of Australians who have paid Telstra for a second telephone line have instead had their existing line split in two by using cost cutting, line sharing pair gain technology? Can he confirm that this line sharing drastically reduces dial-up Internet speed and prevents the use of ADSL broadband and that Telstra refuses to disclose the line sharing, deceiving consumers into thinking they have been given a full new line? Acting Prime Minister, how do you justify Telstra's massive phone line rental increases when they are short-changing so many customers, charging more and delivering less?7216Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I would draw his attention in good faith to the reality that, if he is really serious about eliciting information in this place, he might like to note that I am not actually the minister responsible for telecommunications, nor am I the spokesperson in this place for telecommunications.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister—4K4Mr ANDERSON—No, Mr Speaker, if this place is to be taken seriously—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Not when GI Joe is in charge!K26Latham, Mark, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Hunter and the member for Werriwa! Minister, I was not interrupting you.4K4Mr ANDERSON—No, I was not accusing you of that. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I simply wanted to get the House to recognise the obligations it had to hear you without interruption. 4K4Mr ANDERSON—So, Mr Speaker, I just say that those sorts of questions are important and deserve some technical elucidation. It is true that Telstra does pair lines; there is no doubt about that. There is no doubt too that in certain circumstances it can have an impact on data speeds, as I understand the technology.DT4Crean, Simon, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—That does not alter the fact of some general comments that I think are very important to make in this place. Firstly, we—and not the Labor Party, in 13 years in government—have put in place a set of universal service obligations and customer service guarantees which give consumers rights that they can exercise, that they can insist that Telstra, for example—8K6Fitzgibbn, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—At what speed?4K4Mr ANDERSON—To respond—unwisely, I suppose—to the interjection, they can go to Telstra and demand their rights to certain data speeds. It would also—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—What on earth are you talking about?4K4Mr ANDERSON—You can insist on certain data speeds in rural and regional areas in particular. It is also important to make the point, though, that the reality is that charges for many of these services are coming down—4I4McLeay, Leo, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—and that in relation to line service charges—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Melbourne!4K4Mr ANDERSON—This is the next point I want to make: in the line rentals issue, it has been known for a long time—supported by the ACCC and Allan Fels, supported by telecommunications experts everywhere—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker, they are not interested in my elucidating these facts at all.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek—You don't even know any!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Sydney is warned.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I say to the Leader of the Opposition that there is never a question time in which I do not find myself having to draw his attention to the obligation he has not to interject.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It was just a friendly interjection.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—There are few of those.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—There are not! There are plenty of them!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will not defy the chair or I will deal with him, as I am obliged to do.1K6Billson, Bruce, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Neither will the member for Dunkley. Has the Acting Prime Minister concluded his answer?4K4Mr ANDERSON—No, I have not. I meant, when I referred to the ACC, the ACCC. I make the point—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—If they are interested in information, Mr Speaker, I am prepared to provide them with quite a bit. The fact is that the ACCC and the Productivity Commission have both argued strongly for removal of what is known as the access deficit, because it will enable more competition for access to lines. Competition brings down charges and improves services. I know that is novel to the neo-socialists opposite who now want to go back to the public ownership of—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Any day now we will see them wanting to take over public ownership of Qantas again, and then it will be the Commonwealth Bank, and it will go on and on and on. But competition improves services and brings down prices. The ACCC and the Productivity Commission have both highlighted the need to remove what is known as the access deficit, and we have agreed that that ought to happen over four years. The really important point of all of this is that the Leader of the Opposition, and the opposition more generally, has known about these price increases for some five months. Not a word was breathed—because they knew the policy argument—until the Leader of the Opposition found his way down to a certain seat, which he is a bit worried about, on the east coast of New South Wales. He went out and made a hero of himself saying that he would save battlers money—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Acting Prime Minister will come back to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—He made a hero of himself by saying that he would disallow these line rental increases because it would save battlers money. It will not; it will not save them any money. In reality, if he were to succeed, he would remove the opportunity for a new competitor that wants to provide services to the people in that seat by providing easier access to the lines in the area. This is political opportunism of the first order, and the people of Cunningham will have no opportunity to benefit at all from the Leader of the Opposition's misplaced heroism.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Could I ask the Acting Prime Minister to table the document he was reading from?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Was the Acting Prime minister reading from a document?4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—In very small part only.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Was the document confidential?4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—Yes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Acting Prime Minister has indicated that the document was confidential.4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Watson!721815:15:007218Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Environment and Heritage. Can the minister advise the House of initiatives taken by the Howard government to protect our oceans? How do these policies compare to previous actions?7218Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable member for her question. The Howard government's oceans policy is recognised as a world-leading policy. At the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, Australia put forward a number of initiatives to improve the management of the world's oceans and recognised and gained international recognition for the fact that these are critical for global food security and for sustaining economic prosperity.There is no doubt at all that oceans management would not have achieved the recognition it did at the world summit had it not been for the leadership that Australia provided. As a result, we have made significant gains in the areas of marine biodiversity conservation, sustainable fishing, pollution alleviation, information development and sharing and strengthening the governance of the world's oceans. The summit partnerships that we have now put in place involve some 24 nations, including countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, Japan, Norway and of course our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region.In this context I am also very pleased to be able to announce to the House that, overnight in Bonn, at the meeting of the convention on the conservation of migratory species, the Howard government was successful in its campaign to have listed under the convention six species of great whale. The Antarctic minke, the brooders, the fin, the pygmy right, the sei and the sperm whale are now listed under the convention. These listings open the door for Australia to begin consultations with our South Pacific neighbours to develop a memorandum of understanding on the conservation of all listed mammals under the convention that can be found at various times during their migrations in the South Pacific. Such an MOU would be the first agreement in the region to specifically assist the conservation of these whales and other mammals under the convention.I am also very proud to be able to announce that today, with the Lord Howe Island Commonwealth waters management plan coming into effect, the Howard government has put in place statutory management plans for all 20 Commonwealth parks and reserves. The completion of a proper management regime for all the Commonwealth parks has now finally overcome the neglect of Commonwealth parks and reserves that occurred under Labor during their 13 years in office. In office they were not prepared to do the hard work, and they are not prepared to do the hard work now.Take greenhouse. Greenhouse is another example where the Howard government is prepared to do the hard grind to reach the 108 per cent target, while Labor seems to think that ratifying an international treaty is all that it takes—as if it is some kind of magic wand—and that no hard work is required. That is the difference. This is a government that is prepared to address these issues—to do the work—while on the other side of the House we have an opposition which is simply not prepared to do the hard policy work to have any credibility whatever. While the Leader of the Opposition concentrates on party factions and trying to deal with union domination of the party and the Labor Party is looking to its past, the Howard government is looking to the future and putting in place the policies that will protect Australia's environment.721915:19:007219Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for Family and Community Services. Minister, I refer to the government's new quality standards for disability employment services; that is, business services. Minister, isn't it the case that the new legislation does not contain a wage assessment tool because it is still being developed? Minister, how can business services and people with disabilities have certainty under the new regime when you have not even worked out what the wage benchmarks will be? How can the business services sector and people with disabilities have confidence in your government's reform process?7219Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I would like to thank the member for her maiden question and I am very happy to answer it on behalf of Senator Amanda Vanstone, who has carriage of this area. Certainly, if standard 9 is disallowed the effect is that there will be no wage standard for business services on which we believe that the government can act on wages. No person with a disability will gain from this approach for the reason why you are objecting to it.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Take your hand out of your pocket.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Werriwa!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Some of the leading business services already have wage assessment processes in place that satisfy standard 9.DK6Hockey, Joe, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Minister for Small Business is provoking the member for Werriwa!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—I am sure he is very interested in this. Some use the supported wages system designed for open employment and others have developed similar approaches of their own better suited to their employment environment. We are developing a new pro rata wage assessment tool. We hope to have this in place by March 2003. We believe that, if this is accepted, we could have it operational as quickly as possible.It is interesting because the model of this tool is actually being supported by some of the leading advocates in the disability sector—and you know this—from ACROD, from the National Caucus of Disability Consumer Organisations, and from the ACTU and from relevant Commonwealth agencies. So I am a bit surprised that you have such resistance to this new tool that we are developing.Nevertheless, unlike the supported wages system, the new tool will include both competency and productivity components, so it will provide links to training and career advancement. It will be also used to train and accredit assessors. We do believe this is an appropriate step. There has been a long process of reform within disabilities, particularly when it comes to the business services review. We do believe there needs to be flexibility within that system, but ultimately our objective remains the same—that is, giving the best opportunity to those people who have disabilities, whether it is in supported employment or whether it is through the business services review.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis—Mr Speaker, I ask that the minister table the document from which he was quoting.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Was the minister reading from a document?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—Yes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Was the document confidential?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—Yes.722015:22:007220McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Could the minister advise the House of recent changes in the delivery of the Green Corps program? What success is the program having? Is the minister aware of alternative policies in this area?7220Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I would like to thank the member for Corangamite for his keen interest in the Green Corps project. Why shouldn't he be interested? In his electorate, there have been a number of teams operating. In particular, he has brought to my attention one very successful project which I would like to tell the House about. That is the Western District Lakes Ramsar and High Value Wetlands Restoration Project at Colac. This is an excellent example of where the Green Corps team has been working to advance the outcome of a better environment.I am very happy to state that the Green Corps project, a coalition government signature project, has been extended to the year 2005. I was also happy to announce quite a few weeks ago that the successful bidder for the $69 million, three-year Green Corps project was Greening Australia, which has done a wonderful job in partnership with Job Futures—and there are some interesting characters in Job Futures. We welcome them. I also would like to pay tribute—and it is important to do this—to Conservation Volunteers Australia, which had the project since its inception and did a terrific job.00AMRKing, Catherine, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Ballarat.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—We wish them well, and I know they are doing many other projects in Green Reserve and the like.We stated as soon as we got into government in 1996 that we would introduce the Green Corps project. I would like to thank the Minister for the Environment and Heritage at the time who was a great champion of Green Corps. Indeed, it has probably been our most successful project that has engaged young people. Why shouldn't it be? That is a very good question. It was executed by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and advanced by all members of the coalition.There are three key attributes of the program that I would like to acknowledge to the House. It is giving young Australians the opportunity to develop more skills and an interest in the environment. That is a worthy cause. It is geared towards young Australians between the ages of 17 and 20. The sheer popularity of the program demonstrates its success; demand consistently outstrips supply. Another of the Green Corps' attributes is that, for the first time, these young Australians are given active training in, for example, bush regeneration and habitat protection. It gives them 134 hours of accredited training, which I know the Minister for Education, Science and Training is very keen about.00AMRKing, Catherine, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Ballarat.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—If they continue with it, they can use that training component to go onto further education. Plus, they get paid a training allowance of up to $300 a week. This is a very good program of the coalition government. The best outcome is for the environment. Since its inception, over 8,200 young Australians have gone through the program. There have been 700 projects through which we have planted four million trees, done 2,000 kilometres of fencing, weeded 30,000 hectares, planted five tonnes of seeds—there are a lot of seeds on that side of the House—and established 16,000 kilometres of walking tracks. Do not just take my word for it. Let me quote a Green Corps participant:Greencorps gave me the motivation, the independence and a sense of self-esteem that I had lost somewhere along the way.He went on to say:Before this opportunity presented itself, I was wasting my days and watching them roll past in front of me.That is a bit like what the Australian Labor Party are doing at the moment, isn't it?The member asked: are there any alternatives? From this side of the House, the answer is simply no. Indeed, they have shown very little enthusiasm or support for this project. Their silence condemns them.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—I think some of them should try it!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—As the Acting Prime Minister suggests, I am sure there are ample opportunities for members of the opposition to participate in some Green Corps projects. I suggest that they are perhaps a little bit old and that maybe the Green Reserves might be more suitable. I would like to acknowledge the work of Conservation Volunteers Australia and the fine work of all of those young Australians who are participating in Green Corps, which is a wonderful Liberal-National Party initiative.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will hear the point of order, but I recognise the Acting Prime Minister.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—Pursuant to standing order 321, I request that the minister table the document from which he was quoting.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Was the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs reading from a document?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—No—83REdwards, Graham, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—That seems to be a strangely unhelpful interjection, if I might observe, member for Cowan. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs will at least exercise the courtesy of standing to address the chair. Was the minister reading from a document?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—No. I was just referring to a few sections.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Were the notes to which you referred confidential?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—Yes, they were.Personal Explanations722115:28:007221Mr TANNER,MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the member for Melbourne claim to have been misrepresented?YU5Mr TANNER,MPMr TANNER—Yes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.YU5Mr TANNER,MPMr TANNER—During question time, the Acting Prime Minister stated that, at the time the government's plan to massively increase line rental fees for telephones was announced, I made no statements whatsoever; and, secondly, that I had only pursued disallowance of the price control regime which permits these after the Cunningham by-election was announced. In response, I seek leave to table my press release dated 16 April 2002, which commences with the words:All Australians should be outraged at reports that Senator Alston plans to allow Telstra to increase home phone line rental charges.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne knows that he cannot elaborate or advance an argument. He may indicate where he has been misrepresented.YU5Mr TANNER,MPMr TANNER—In response to the second claim, I point out that, given that the price control regime was tabled right at the very end of sittings in June, the first available opportunity that the opposition had to put a disallowance motion on the record was after Mr Martin resigned from his seat of Cunningham and after we knew there was to be a by-election.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne claims that he has been misrepresented. The member for Melbourne must be aware that he can indicate where he has been misrepresented, not where his party has been misrepresented.YU5Mr TANNER,MPMr TANNER—The accusation was made against me personally, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne in that case ought to have indicated that earlier in the second part of his remarks.YU5Mr TANNER,MPMr TANNER—Sorry, Mr Speaker; I was under the impression I had.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will check the Hansard. I may have not listened closely. The member for Melbourne was seeking leave to table a document. Is leave granted?Leave not granted.15:30:007222Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I do, Mr Speaker. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Yesterday in the MPI, the Minister for Employment Services repeated the falsehood that I had no external evaluation of the Working Nation program. In fact, the Working Nation program set aside $16 million for monitoring the evaluation including, as it says on page 141 of the document, `a longitudinal survey of jobless people by the ABS'—they are an independent outfit—`to allow a comparison between job compact participants and other long-term unemployed people in terms of their experiences and labour markets success'. From memory, the external evaluation was axed by the coalition in 1996.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has indicated where he was misrepresented. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. If the Leader of the Opposition would like a more accelerated approach from the Speaker, I will be glad to accommodate him.Documents7222Mr McGAURAN (Gippsland—Deputy Leader of the House) (3.30 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—Annual Report 2001-02—section 63 of the Public Service Act 1999. (19 September 2002 / 20 September 2002)Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)—Quarterly Report of the Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA for the Period 1 January to 31 March 2002—section 60 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (ARPANS) Act 1998. (13 June 2001 / 17 June 2001)Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade-Australia—China Council—Annual Report 2001-02. (17 September 2002 / 17 September 2002)Department of Health and Ageing—Report on the Operation of the Aged Care Act 1997—1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002-section 63-2 of the Aged Care Act 1997. (10 September 2002 / 10 September 2002)Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance7223722310000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honorable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to develop trade policies in the interests of Australian jobs and industries.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—15:34:007223Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—It is the responsibility of any elected national government to behave in the national interest, but this government is failing that test. It is failing to behave in the national interest. Its trade policies are not in the interests of Australian workers, nor are they in the interests of Australian industries. The way the government has approached the proposed free trade agreement with the United States, it is heading down the track of abandoning the national interest. In doing that, it is betraying Australian farmers, city workers and industries. It is prepared to betray the national interest in its sycophantic `pick me, pick me' attitude towards the United States and a free trade agreement.On 1 August, the Congress passed a trade promotion authority—that is, a fast track authority to get trade negotiations approved by the Congress. When that happened, the trade minister said:Australia is very close to the top of the list when it comes to trade negotiations for a free trade agreement with the United States.The administration's own statement reveals that Australia was ranked below the following countries for a free trade agreement: Chile, Singapore, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Morocco. We have our trade minister saying we are right at the top of the list and the fact is we are not at all. Last Friday, US Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, confirmed that Australia is not an early cab off the rank for a free trade agreement with the United States. He said Australia must change its quarantine laws to the satisfaction of the United States first—that is, we must modify the quarantine laws that are designed to keep disease and pests out of this country so as not to contaminate our agricultural products. The government is saying to that, `Well, that is all right. Before we even start negotiations on a free trade agreement with the United States, we will go along with that demand.' That is exactly what is happening. The government persists with its claim that it has some sort of special relationship with the United States. The trade minister has declared, in relation to the proposed free trade agreement with the United States, that everything is on the table. He told ABC TV that the government `will not countenance any exclusions'.American agencies have already identified the following as Australian impediments to a free trade agreement with the United States: quarantine, single marketing desks for agriculture, the remaining partial public ownership of Telstra, the Foreign Investment Review Board and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The American administration and authorities are saying, `We will not countenance any exclusions on the table,' and the minister is agreeing with this, because he is saying, `Everything is on the table as far as we are concerned. We are prepared to modify or abandon our quarantine arrangements and we are prepared to modify or abandon the single marketing desk for agriculture—for grains and so on.' Obviously the government are saying, `We are prepared to sell the rest of Telstra to make sure that we get a free trade agreement with the United States and we are prepared to abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board'—the very board that was used by the Treasurer a couple years ago to stop the Shell takeover of Woodside. The Foreign Investment Review Board was important then, but now it is on the table for negotiations because the Americans will not countenance any exclusions.We need to understand what the objection to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme means. The Americans do not accept that we should subsidise pharmaceuticals. They are saying that this should be a level playing field, it should be a free market, so that American drug companies can sell in at an elevated price and we cannot subsidise those products. Of course, we saw in the budget that the government wanted to increase prescription costs, and now pharmaceuticals are heavily into the negotiations on a free trade agreement with the United States.The government has repeatedly claimed in support of this zealous quest for a free trade agreement with the United States that Australia stands to gain $4 billion per annum. That turns out to be 0.6 per cent of GDP, so it is not a huge figure, but let us go behind that $4 billion and find out how it was obtained. We have had a look at the economic modelling behind it that was commissioned by the foreign affairs department and most of that $4 billion comes from Australia abolishing its own trade barriers on US imports. What are those trade barriers? Apart from those items I just indicated, they are tariffs on cars, tariffs on car components and tariffs on textiles, clothing and footwear. So, when the government claims that the nation will get $4 billion out of this deal, it is saying, `Of course, what we need to do to get the $4 billion is abolish our tariffs on imports from the United States of cars, car components, and textiles, clothing and footwear.' I would be very interested in the view of the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources on this, because he has in his possession a Productivity Commission report which says that tariffs may fall from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. It does not recommend zero, Minister, yet your own modelling says that, to get to this mythical $4 billion, you will have to abolish—not reduce, but abolish—tariffs on American cars, American car components and American and Mexican textiles, clothing and footwear.The minister for industry ought to be sticking up for these industries instead of going along with this approach where the government is falling over itself to do a deal on a free trade agreement with the United States without any recognition of its obligation to protect the national interest. It is very interesting that neither the trade minister nor the industry minister has revealed to the public that most of that estimated benefit comes from them agreeing to abolish tariffs on those imports from the United States.The second impact, of course, is that it will divert trade away from East Asia to the United States. Wouldn't that raise in the government's mind some concern about retaliation by our East Asian trading partners? Our East Asian trading partners take 55 per cent of Australia's merchandise exports and the United States takes 10 per cent. So the government is prepared to risk 55 per cent of our merchandise exports in order to do a free trade agreement with the United States. How can that be in the national interest?The remainder of that $4 billion figure in the modelling mainly comes from the United States removing its trade barriers on Australian agricultural exports to the US. How likely is that? If the minister had taken the time to have a look at the trade promotion authority that was passed on 1 August through the American Senate, he would have seen that in fact it gives a green light to negotiations in the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations. It says to the administration, `Go and negotiate a deal.' But when it comes to bilateral deals between one country and another, at best it gives an amber light—they have to keep reporting back to Congress and to committees of Congress and get permission. Where it involves so-called `import-sensitive agricultural products', effectively it is a red light. Why? Because American farming interests do not want a free trade agreement done between Australia and the United States that involves the Americans removing their trade barriers on our agricultural exports to the United States.Senator Baucus, chair of the US Senate Finance Committee that actually handles these trade negotiations and who decides whether it is an amber light or a red light, has since written to the US Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick, saying that he is against a free trade agreement with Australia. He is a former champion of a free trade agreement between Australia and the United States, and what does his letter say? `Doha first—go through the multilateral route; don't do a preferential, discriminatory trade deal with Australia.' He is not alone—important as he is—because just last week 20 of the most powerful farm lobbies in the United States also wrote to the administration saying that they were opposed to a trade deal between Australia and the United States that involved reductions in agricultural protection by the United States. So here we have a government, with all this knowledge, with all these very strong objections to such a trade deal, all these strong objections to the United States reducing its trade barriers on agricultural products, and a National Party minister not worried at all about that. Why? Because the Prime Minister says we are going to have a free trade agreement with the United States—because we are in this `pick me, pick me' mode because we want a free trade agreement with the United States. It is his responsibility to stick up for the interests of Australian farmers instead of selling out the interests of Australian farmers just to make the Prime Minister happy so that he can have a trophy on his mantelpiece and say, `Look, there is my shining trophy. There is my free trade agreement with the United States—and I don't care if I am selling out the interests of Australian car workers and component manufacturers, and I don't care if I'm selling out the interests of Australian farmers!' That is what you are doing—selling out the interests of Australian farmers by persisting with a free trade agreement that would be preferential, that would be discriminatory, that would divert trade from East Asia and that would risk retaliation.Why on earth would America simultaneously negotiate a trade deal on agriculture and other products with Australia say, `Okay, we'll give you this preferential access, but while we're doing that we're over here in the multilateral World Trade Organisation and we have to explain to them why we are giving a special deal to Australia.' Of course, they will not do that. They will want to use the multilateral channel to get reductions in agricultural protection from the European Union and from Japan. That is what they will do. That is sensibly what they will do. That is what the farm lobby has asked them to do. The farm lobby in the United States wants that agricultural protection reduced in the European Union and in Japan, and that cannot happen by doing a preferential trade deal with Australia.I was wondering what the attitude of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to this might be. He delivered a speech just a couple of weeks ago. Under the heading `Preferential trade: “competitive liberalisation”', he observed this:A particular trend of the past decade has been the growth of preferential trade arrangements—which by definition discriminate against non-parties ...He went on to say:Legitimate fears have long been held about the impact of such arrangements on multilateral trade negotiations, and on the rules and disciplines for international trade—the so-called `spaghetti bowl' effect ...Where had I heard reference to a spaghetti bowl? I was here in the last parliament when there was discussion about spaghetti, noodles and so on. I thought I would try to find out a little more about it, and I have. A document has come to my attention which describes this government's trade negotiating strategy—10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member for Rankin should be aware of the rules of the House.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—I am, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will be seeking leave to table this document. I might just circulate a couple of copies to colleagues though. My understanding, based on reliable sources—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Did you get Barry Jones to do it?83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—Exactly. You did? Well, well! 10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member for Rankin!83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The minister is right. This is exactly the same diagram that Barry Jones provided to the Labor Party some time ago. Obviously the government has employed the services of Barry Jones to help describe this government's trade strategy. We have the United States in the middle of the diagram. We have NAFTA. We have the British Empire up at the top. We have APEC over on the side. There is Japan. There is Nauru, of course, one of our major trading partners in light of the Pacific solution. And there is the World Trade Organisation over to one side. That is a pretty accurate description of the muddle-headed spaghetti that the Minister for Foreign Affairs described and warned about with these overlapping trade deals where you have discriminatory trade deals and multilateral trade deals. The government says they are building blocks, not stumbling blocks. They are stumbling blocks. The government's trade strategy is an absolute mess.It is one thing for a trade strategy to be a mess; it is another thing for a government to sell out the interests of Australian workers and Australian farmers. If the government continues pursuing discriminatory bilateral trade deals as depicted in this diagram, it is lending weight to the notion of the world descending into restrictive trading blocs. When did that last happen? Before the Second World War. When the world got into these restrictive trade blocs, they contributed directly to the Great Depression and they contributed directly to the Second World War. That is what the government is warning about. That is what the foreign minister is warning about. That is what is described in the diagram which has been provided with the assistance of Barry Jones. That is why Labor says—and we have been consistent about this all through the Labor years—that we should put the World Trade Organisation negotiations first—put Doha first. The government is preparing to betray Australian farmers; it is preparing to betray the Australian car industry and all the workers employed in it. Through getting rid of local content rules on Australian television to suit American interests, it is also preparing to betray Australian culture. We will have no access to Australian culture if this government persists with its free trade agreement with the United States in the way that it is planning to. It is time that the government stood up for Australia's national interests, and no-one else's. I seek leave to table the government's trade strategy.Leave not granted.15:50:007226Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—At least this afternoon we may have seen some glimmer of a policy on trade from the Australian Labor Party. I would like to correct a few erroneous points that have been made by the member for Rankin. The first was that the Labor Party has always opposed a free trade agreement with the United States. That is incorrect. Going back to the former spokesman on trade bar one, Senator Peter Cook: he actually supported and saw the merits in a closer bilateral negotiation with the United States. At least he had some experience in and some understanding of international trade policy and how the environment was constantly changing as far as trading opportunities for Australia were concerned and in being able to support our position when we originally put that to the newer Bush administration when they were first elected.After the election, we had the since departed member for Cunningham at one stage offering tacit support. Then he opposed it and then he supported it subject to the Bush administration removing the Farm Bill from the statute books. Then we had the member for Rankin, as we have heard today, absolutely opposed to a United States free trade agreement with Australia. We have had the Leader of the Opposition equivocating on it and then saying that he would support it subject to the removal of the Farm Bill from the statute books in the United States. Now, obviously, those opposite are absolutely opposed. As to the other vociferous spokesperson on international matters on the other side—the member for Griffith, the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs—we have not heard him utter one word about this matter. We know that he does support the government's position on integrating our economy more closely with that of the United States. The member for Rankin indicated that the government was going to abrogate the responsibilities to the agricultural exporters in Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let it be put on the record that it was the Australian Labor Party in government, at the end of the Uruguay Round, that abrogated their responsibility on agriculture. We got no forward movement in agriculture in the Uruguay Round, and that is what we are fighting. We are fighting a rearguard action and trying to get that back onto the agenda. We achieved that in Doha and we are actively pursuing it on the multilateral scene.Let there be no mistake that it was the Australian Labor Party that signed off on the Uruguay Round, excluded agriculture and excluded any opportunity for improvement in access for agricultural products out of Australia. Let it also be known that, as part of that sign-off, the Australian Labor Party agreed to the legal amount of support that can be paid by the US administration—and that is $19 billion this year—under the US Farm Bill that they want removed from the statute books. No Australian government can tell the American government to remove the Farm Bill from the statute books. The Labor Party agreed to the amount of support that the US administration can apply to their farmers. The only place we are going to negotiate a reduction in that is in the multilateral scene, in the Doha Round. It was the coalition government, in the negotiations in Doha, that got that on the centre page of the agenda. As the Chair of the Cairns Group, I can tell you that it was the actions of the Australian coalition government, along with our counterparts in the Cairns Group, that got that on the centre page of the agenda. There will be no conclusion to this round until there is a satisfactory outcome on agriculture. We are not going to abrogate our responsibilities to the agricultural producers in Australia, like the Australian Labor Party did in the Uruguay Round of negotiations.It is obvious from some of the comments made by the member for Rankin in his opening remarks on this MPI that, unlike Senator Cook—his predecessor bar one—he was not in Seattle when that round of discussions collapsed and failed because of a lack of interest from a number of member countries in the WTO. A lot of countries, including Australia, had invested a lot of political capital and resources into building a case to launch a round in Seattle. We wasted two more years until we launched a round in Doha. We did then, but I can tell the House that this government is not going to abrogate our responsibilities to any Australian exporting company that is employing Australians and seeking better opportunities.That is why we have a very broad, multifaceted trade policy. We are absolutely focused on the WTO. We are absolutely focused on the opportunities that we can have through the multilateral agenda, but we are not going to put all our eggs in one basket. We are not going to run the risk of getting to the end of this round of negotiations, on 1 January 2005, to have it fail because one of the 144 member countries of the WTO does not like the outcome. We would have wasted four or five years as far as our exporters are concerned.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—Try some leadership.SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—That is exactly what we are doing. We are showing leadership by promoting a policy of competitive liberalisation on the international trade scene. We make no apologies for actively pursuing a bilateral agenda at the same time as we are putting significant resources into, and showing leadership in, the multilateral scene. We have showed leadership in the lead-up to Doha, by participating in two informal mini-ministerial meetings. We participated in Doha, where we launched the round, and we made sure that we had the core issues of agriculture on that agenda. In that regard, we are holding the third informal mini-ministerial meeting in Sydney this year as part of the process of continuing to drive the agenda as far as that round is concerned. At the same time, we will pursue better opportunities to deliver benefits to Australian exporters faster. 83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—If the member for Rankin thinks he can defy the chair, I will implement standing order 304A.SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—We are negotiating with Singapore and Thailand on a closer economic relationship agreement and we certainly have ambitions of negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States of America. We are not in denial on that, and we are up-front about what we are proposing to do. We are doing it not for the reason outlined by the member for Rankin but in the interests of the nation and in the interests of the Australian economy to engage more deeply with the largest economy in the world. You have got the fastest-growing economy in the world and the fastest-growing developed economy in the world wanting to engage with the largest economy in the world to deliver benefits to Australians and to Australian business.We make no apologies about the breadth of our multifaceted trade policy in pursuing our agenda in the multilateral scene while at the same time pursuing our regional position in East Asia—and I will come to that in a minute. Just as importantly, the bilateral agenda is absolutely crucial to the ongoing expansion of our trade efforts. Next year the CER agreement we have with New Zealand will be 20 years old. Next year we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of CER, which has seen the economic relationship between Australia and New Zealand grow by 500 per cent. Just think of the prospects if we could achieve that sort of growth in our relationship with the United States as a result of a free trade agreement. Is that not worth pursuing in the national interest? Of course it is worth pursuing, and it is worth pursuing progress in the multilateral scene at the same time. I will just comment on some of the issues that were raised by the member for Rankin. He made the statement that our ambitions, as far as this engagement with the United States of America is concerned, would put at risk or damage our relationships in East Asia. That is an absolutely erroneous point to make, and the facts speak for themselves. Since we announced our ambitions and put a proposal to the Bush administration to negotiate an FTA, at least a couple of quite outstanding events have taken place. The first one was the recently announced $25 billion LNG deal between Australia and China. That is one of the relationships the Australian Labor Party would like to think has been put at risk. It has never been better or stronger. Getting that deal up epitomised the strength of that relationship.The second event happened the weekend before last, in Brunei. Australia and New Zealand signed the first trade-focused agreement with the 10 ASEAN countries, which means a closer economic partnership between the 10 South-East Asian countries and Australia and New Zealand. We have been pursuing that for the last four years. At the press conference, one of the representatives of the media asked, `Where does this put Australia, in comparison with Japan, Korea and China, in terms of their aspiration to engage with South-East Asia?' The answer did not come from me, as Australia's Minister for Trade; it came from the trade minister from Malaysia. She immediately said that it puts Australia and New Zealand ahead of Japan, Korea and China in terms of their economic relationship with the 10 South-East Asian countries. That is not a weakened relationship in East Asia because of our engagement with the United States; it is a strengthened relationship. A further point is that all the countries in East Asia are also engaging with the largest economy in the world for their own benefit. They are all pursuing a better bilateral trading relationship with the United States of America. So it is a fallacy to say that you weaken one position regionally and multilaterally because you are pursuing a bilateral engagement with the largest economy in the world.The member for Rankin also indicated that we are way behind a number of other countries on the trade list. I will inform the member for Rankin that we are patient. We are not going to rush into this to get a political outcome; we want to move into this slowly and surely, and get a good economic outcome for Australia's exporters that is balanced and that delivers benefits to Australian exporters. If the member for Rankin has not noticed, the Australian economy is a very open economy. We have low levels of tariffs and we run a very open economy. We want to open up access into the United States market for our exporters. The member for Rankin focused on all the negatives and difficult issues that you would expect. Of course it is going to be difficult. If it had been easy, the Labor Party would have done it when they were in office; but it is not easy, so they did not even try. Not only did the Labor Party abrogate their responsibilities as far as the agricultural industries of Australia were concerned; they did not try in an area where they knew we could get great economic advantage. The member for Rankin mentioned that Chile and Singapore are on that list. The United States has just about concluded negotiations with Chile and Singapore, so Australia gets mentioned after Morocco and Central America in terms of that list. Chile and Singapore are just about concluded, so they already have a much deeper engagement with the United States than the other countries that have been mentioned.Quarantine is an issue, because we will not depart from the scientific basis of our quarantine system in Australia. We have been deeply engaged in discussions on the quarantine process with officials from the United States. It is as much about their process as our process, as far as quarantine is concerned. As far as auto tariffs are concerned, one of the largest markets in the United States is SUVs, special utility vehicles. There are tariffs on those that we would like to see removed. They are some of the things that we want to pursue. We want to pursue the Americans on the Jones Act regarding the export of fast ferries into the United States. We want to see their services sector opened up so that one of the fastest growing export earners can get access to that market. This MPI and the position the Labor Party have taken is one that is very narrow. It abrogates their responsibility to Australian exporters and certainly is not worth supporting. (Time expired)16:05:007229O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr BRENDAN O'CONNOR00AN3BurkeALP00—I rise to support the MPI and the member for Rankin. After hearing the Minister for Trade's lame comments and excuses, I am utterly convinced that this government has failed. This government has failed to deliver a trade policy that is in the interests of Australian jobs and Australian industry. In some areas of trade policy, it is debatable whether the government is acting in Australia's best interests. One example is the government's recent flirtation with a preferential free trade deal with the United States. Labor has said it is not necessarily opposed to free trade agreements but it would want to ensure that any such agreements were in the national interest before it would reach agreement. To be in the national interest means that the agreement must deliver benefits to the local industry and, most importantly, must deliver local jobs. That is what Labor is about. It is about supporting local jobs and ensuring that agreements that are reached with countries deliver those jobs. I have to say, having listened to the minister, that he fails to make the point and he fails to convince anybody that any jobs will result from any discussions that he has had with the United States.The government has yet to present a convincing case as to why a free trade agreement with the United States would be in Australia's national interest. The government seems intent on pursuing such an agreement with the United States, without considering some of the key problems it might bring. For example, despite half-hearted assurances from the Australian government, there is no guarantee that agriculture will be sufficiently covered by a free trade agreement. It is hard to see how the Americans will allow agriculture to be liberalised under a specific free trade agreement with Australia. Indeed, the US Congress recently passed the Trade Promotion Authority to expedite the US President's negotiation of trade agreements with other countries.However, the TPA makes provisions for import sensitive agricultural products, including sugar, beef, dairy and cotton. These provisions mean that, before the US President can even begin to negotiate on these products, he is required by law to consult with Congress on whether liberalising these individual sectors is appropriate. Needless to say, Congress has given itself the option of removing such agricultural products from any trade agreement that can be negotiated with Australia. These arrangements have recently become more important, given that the major US farm lobby group, the American Farm Bureau Federation, has urged the American government not to negotiate a free trade agreement with Australia. Instead, the farm lobby in the United States has agreed that agricultural trade reform is best pursued through the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations through the World Trade Organisation. Given the politics surrounding agriculture in the United States and the fact that Congress has reserved the right to take many agricultural products off the table, it is hard to see how the Howard government will be able to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States without some sort of compromise on access to American markets for agricultural products. This will be very bad news for Australian farmers.Meanwhile, the government's enthusiastic pursuit of a preferential free trade agreement with the United States in the same time frame as the Doha Round is diverting attention from our major trading partners in East Asia. I do not accept the comments made by the minister that that is not a problem; it is a problem. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has argued, the government is also pushing for a free trade agreement with the United States because it believes the United States is increasing its dominance of the world market. This is totally wrong. In fact, as John Edwards, Chief Economist of HSBC Australia, suggested in today's Financial Review:Far from becoming steadily more dominant in the global economy, the US is becoming steadily less dominant.Edwards rightly points out that over the last 20 years and into the future the markets showing the strongest growth and having the biggest impact on growth in world trade are parts of Asia and Latin America. China and India, in particular, are set to become increasingly important players in the world economy. Yet the government's primary focus in trade policy seems to be a free trade agreement with the United States. Clearly it has got its positioning wrong on this.This is at the same time as plans are under way to establish trade blocs involving China, ASEAN and Japan. While Australia recently signed an agreement with the ASEAN countries to reduce technical barriers to trade, it is a long way short of a free trade agreement with these countries. A free trade agreement is what the government sought, but it failed to convince ASEAN countries of the merits of including Australia in any such agreement. Australia appears to have been shut out of any ASEAN free trade agreement. This is particularly damaging for Australia's automotive industry, which has long wanted to gain fair access to South-East Asian car markets. While ASEAN has rejected a free trade deal with Australia, it is pushing ahead with trade deals with China, Japan, South Korea and India.The government also recently failed to negotiate a free trade agreement with Japan, due to sensitivity in Japan over agricultural products. I hope that the government will give agriculture the same priority in negotiating a bilateral free trade agreement with the United States as it did when trying to negotiate a bilateral agreement with Japan. The fact remains that the Howard government has not been leading the push for global trade liberalisation through the multilateral process. Former Labor governments took a leadership role in driving the Cairns Group and pushing the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1994.We think the best way forward for trade liberalisation is through the Doha Round of multilateral negotiations through the World Trade Organisation. The Doha Round provides the best chance to achieve real reforms to agricultural trade. All countries can simultaneously reduce their trade barriers, each enjoying the benefits of trade liberalisation at the same time and avoiding the political problems of trading off individual sectors in bilateral free trade agreements. The multilateral process through the Doha Round also provides the opportunity for all countries to move forward together to liberalise world trade, rather than groups of countries negotiating exclusive trade blocs that threaten to divide the world into exclusive trade regimes.The government has also failed Australia's exporters, which generate the jobs and industry development required for Australia to maintain its prosperity. Earlier today, the Chief Economist of Austrade gave a presentation here at Parliament House on growing Australia's exporter community. He has highlighted the fact that only a small proportion of Australian small and medium sized enterprises export. According to Austrade figures, only four per cent of Australian small and medium sized enterprises export. That is a very low proportion by world standards. In fact, in other small industrialised countries, small and medium sized enterprises are much more involved in exporting. In Austria, 68 per cent of SMEs export, in Greece it is 65 per cent, in Finland it is 58 per cent and in the Netherlands it is 57 per cent. Moreover, when you compare countries by how much of their production they export, Australia has one of the lowest figures of all small industrialised countries.What is the government doing about this? The government has at least set a target to double the number of exporters in Australia by 2006. Austrade estimates that this will require an extra 13,000 new exporters in addition to the natural growth in the number of exporters one would normally expect. At the same time, the government has failed to do anything about the funding crisis in the flagship assistance program for exporters: the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, or the EMDG Scheme. Back in June, the trade minister admitted to the House that 28 per cent of eligible claimants in the EMDG Scheme will miss out on their full entitlements. This has occurred due to the funding crisis in the scheme. Since setting a cap of $150 million per annum in 1997, the government has done nothing to review it. In fact, the funds available to exporters have fallen by a massive 37 per cent in real terms since the cap was introduced in 1997.The government on this issue, as on other important issues recently debated in parliament, must start considering putting the national interest before the interests of other countries. This is not a time to ingratiate ourselves with the United States. This is a very important issue; it is an issue that is affecting jobs in this country, affecting industry and affecting farmers. It is about time that the government actually started representing the interests of those people instead of concerning itself with tugging its forelock at Washington.16:15:007231Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is particularly interesting to see the frolic that has been going on this afternoon as the Labor Party show their true colours and provide yet another example of the anti-Americanism going on within their ranks. We saw their stunt in holding up their noodle nation diagram. This does remind us of the debacle of Knowledge Nation, which they brought out before the election and which was lampooned by cartoonists and columnists across this country. This is more in line with what we can expect from the Labor Party: stunts and left-wing ideology but no real substance relating to trade. The facts speak for themselves in terms of what has been achieved by this government in relation to trade and the rhetoric that has occurred on the other side of the House. If you look at the export earnings when the Labor government went out of office in 1996, the amount was $99 billion. In the last financial year, 2000-01, it was $154 billion. That is a very significant improvement over the time in which this government has been in office. If we want to base it on facts—while those opposite are running around with their noodle nation diagram—let us talk about the statistics. It was $99 billion under your government and it is $154 billion under this government. Does this suggest to you that the Minister for Trade or this government have dropped the ball or have let Australia down? It shows the reverse—over a 50 per cent increase in the amount of trade that Australia receives since we came to government. That is an outstanding achievement by whatever criteria you use.If you come into this House and criticise the government and the minister, you had better get your facts right—and better than you have shown today in terms of your noodle nation diagram—because it is also true to say that, in terms of leadership in relation to the Doha Round, this minister has been outstanding. It was my pleasure a few weeks ago to visit Geneva and to meet with Mike Moore, who was the director-general of the World Trade Organisation until recently, when it was taken over by Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi. Mike Moore is a former New Zealand Labour Prime Minister. What did he say about this Minister for Trade? He said that he was taking an outstanding lead in the Doha Round. He was very pleased and congratulated Australia's leadership and what the minister was doing, particularly with regard to discussions that are being held by the minister in Sydney in November. This is from Mike Moore, who was director-general of the World Trade Organisation and a former Labour Prime Minister. It was true praise indeed—bipartisan praise that is well deserved.David Spencer, Australia's ambassador to the WTO in Geneva, is providing real leadership. When I was there, he assembled a whole group of ambassadors from various countries to discuss where the Doha Round was going. Again, they were complimentary about the leadership role that Australia is taking in relation to the Doha Round. So it is not as if we are dropping the ball and only focusing on our relationship with the US or focusing on other bilateral trade relations. We are very much to the fore with respect to leadership of the Doha Round. There is the leadership of the Australian ambassador in Geneva, David Spencer, and also the leadership of this minister, who chairs the Cairns Group and who is bringing together ministers in Sydney to discuss the progress of the Doha Round to date.What I found on my visit to New Zealand was that the Labour counterparts across the Tasman are quite envious of the jump that this minister has taken in commencing trade relations with the United States and the possibility of a free trade agreement. They were wanting to know why New Zealand could not get into the act as well. Why did we manage to get out there ahead of them with these relationships? This is not an ideological struggle; this is reality. Your counterparts across the Tasman are saying to us, `Why couldn't we come together, as New Zealand and Australia, to negotiate a free trade agreement?' You are actually falling behind in terms of the advantages that people see in these bilateral arrangements. If the round falls over, as is possible if you look at the example from Seattle, then you have these bilateral arrangements to look at. The fact that New Zealand have negotiated their own free trade agreement with Singapore and are negotiating one with Hong Kong means that they see it as very beneficial. They are particularly envious, as was mentioned—people not only in government but also in the chamber of commerce and other key representatives around Wellington—that we have stolen the march by starting these discussions with the United States. We can negotiate on the items that are on the agenda. So, as for selling out agriculture, nothing could be further from the truth.If you listen to the rhetoric coming from some of the farm lobbying organisations, they fear the Australian agricultural producers rather than the other way around. There are enormous benefits right across the board. It ignores the fact of the services sector, for example. I do not know whether the shadow minister who spoke previously is aware that 67 per cent of all of Australia's exports are now in the services sector. It is the services sector and access through a whole range of areas in the services sector that offer enormous potential for us in these rounds. Instead of being stuck in the old economy, as you are in the Labor Party with the old trade union movement, it is time to get into the contemporary environment. It was particularly interesting during my overseas visit to find that 50 per cent of the work of the Trade Commission in the UK is now devoted to IT opportunities for Australian companies there. We are talking about new opportunities in IT, in the biotech area and in a whole range of services that Australia can get into.It is not only in that area that this minister has shown leadership. If we look at the spectacular increase in exports that has occurred under this government, we see that one of the keys has been taking the wholesale sales tax off Australia's exports. Some $4.5 billion was taken off Australian exports. You can talk to Australian exporters about how they regard this major incentive to get out there and export. It is a simple fact that the level of our exports rose by more than 50 per cent due to the expansion of the incentives in the export market development programs, the government taking this $4.5 billion in wholesale sales tax off Australia's exports, and the minister and his predecessor widening the program to include the Australian tourism industry. They were the beneficiaries of the widening of the export market development program.We can look at some of the areas where this minister has had particular success. In the automotive area, our exports are worth $4.9 billion. This figure has doubled over the last four years alone. Toyota's Australian-built Camry is now the biggest selling car in Saudi Arabia. Under this minister, wine is Australia's second largest goods export to the UK, worth $825 million. Overall, the exports are worth some $2 billion. Under Labor, they were one-quarter of this at $500 million. We are now the second largest exporter behind the EU—and some of the EU countries are larger exporters—and certainly larger than California. We can consider the role this minister played in the gas deal with China. You have to go a long way back in Australia's history before you find another spectacular deal of that order. Yet you come into this House and say we are not coming up to scratch in Australia's trade development. It has been an outstanding performance by an outstanding minister. (Time expired)Bills7233S3507233Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that this bill be considered forthwith.Bill agreed to.7233Mr TUCKEY (O'Connor—Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) (4.26 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills7233R16277233Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that this bill be considered forthwith.Bill agreed to.7233Mr TUCKEY (O'Connor—Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) (4.26 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills7233R16257233Consideration resumed.Clause 61 agreed to.Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole, and agreed to.Bill agreed to.7233Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney—Attorney-General) (4.28 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question put:16:33:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 99Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Billson, B.F.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Burke, A.E.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A. *Downer, A.J.G.Dutton, P.C.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Elson, K.S.Emerson, C.A.Entsch, W.G.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gallus, C.A.Gash, J.George, J.Georgiou, P.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Haase, B.W.Hall, J.G.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Johnson, M.A.Kemp, D.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.King, P.E.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Macfarlane, I.E.Macklin, J.L.McArthur, S. *McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.O'Connor, B.P.Pearce, C.J.Plibersek, T.Prosser, G.D.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, A.D.H.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, K.J.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vamvakinou, M.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Wilkie, K.Williams, D.R.Zahra, C.J.33Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Baldwin, R.C.Bartlett, K.J.Byrne, A.M.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Draper, P.Forrest, J.A. *Hawker, D.P.M.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Lloyd, J.E.McGauran, P.J.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.Neville, P.C.O'Connor, G.M.Panopoulos, S.Price, L.R.S.Pyne, C.Quick, H.V. *Randall, D.J.Schultz, A.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N. *Ticehurst, K.V.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Windsor, A.H.C.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bill read a third time.Bills7234R15347234Debate resumed from 21 March, on motion by Mr McGauran:That this bill be now read a second time.16:49:007234Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002 that the parliament now commences finally, after these changes have been floating around for some time, ultimately is a debate about the health of our democracy. It is about ensuring that we have adequate diversity of ownership within our mass media that enables adequate diversity of views to be expressed in the great forum of public debate, which of course is fundamental to the health of our democratic system. It is critical to ensure that people can be elected to this parliament and in an informed way can express their views and that people out in the community who have particular causes or interests to push have access to the means by which they can have their views disseminated to the rest of the community.It is critical to ensure that we have a diversity of ownership, a diversity of control and a diversity of opinion within our major media. We do not want to see a situation in this country where the degree of concentration of power within our media ownership ensures that a tiny handful of people, perhaps only two or three, effectively dominate the decision-making process and particular points of view are aired within the public arena and other points of view are excluded.This market is a very special market and it is important that our media are not regulated just as any other industry is regulated. We are not just talking about consumption of a product. It is not like the market for beer, as one of the submitters to the Senate inquiry into this legislation alleged. This is a very special market requiring particular regulation because the information market, if I can call it that, underpins the health of our democracy. It is worth pointing out that around the world and throughout recent history authoritarian regimes always target the media and try to minimise or destroy diversity of opinion and diversity of voice within the media. That is for a good reason: they understand that if you want to have democracy in a country you have to have a healthy, diverse media as a means of expressing different points of view.I would add, in response to some propositions that have been recently floated, that even allowing the ACCC to have a specific charter to deal with the entire media as a single market, thereby getting over the problem of treating the different kinds of media as separate markets in their own right, I do not think would be sufficient to ensure that we have appropriate regulation to guarantee diversity of ownership and diversity of voice in the Australian media.The government says that our rules are outdated and that, as a result of the emergence of the Internet and digital technologies, a thousand flowers are already blooming, we have many more mechanisms by which people can communicate their views and we do not need the old rules that prevent people from owning too much media across the various platforms. My response to that is to point out that, even in the new world of the Internet, the old traditional media players like Fairfax and PBL are the dominant players through things such as f2 and ninemsn. But surveys show that the overwhelming majority of public opinion formation still occurs through the traditional media of TV, newspapers and radio and that they still dominate the marketplace for ideas and public opinion. Also, I think the concept of convergence, which is often promoted in this debate, is very exaggerated and yet to be demonstrated as the sort of powerful driver of change that is suggested. We ought to acknowledge that if Fairfax were to take over Channel 10, for argument's sake, you would end up with one company still essentially running two separate operations, with minor changes in configuration but ultimately one owner deciding the voice, the opinions and the decisions that actually permeate both organisations.It is argued by the government that journalists, not proprietors, decide what is published in newspapers and what kinds of positions are taken on television. In reality, of course, we know the truth. Evidence given in the Senate inquiry by Steve Kimber, a Canadian journalist, about his experiences with the Halifax Daily News under an owner who also owns a major media outlet in Australia gave a very good illustration of this. The reality for most journalists is that they know what the corporate position is within their media outlet and they know that, if they buck that trend, their career will be damaged. So, yes, they have a certain degree of autonomy, but ultimately control exists with the owner and with people who exercise management power. That is okay; that is the nature of our economy and our society. But we have to guarantee that there is not excessive control and that the number of people who exercise those decisions is not reduced to a very tiny number. A recent Australian Broadcasting Authority survey of 100 news producers showed that there was an overwhelming view amongst news producers that proprietorial interests do have a heavy influence on how news and opinions are conveyed in media outlets and there is a significant self-censorship pattern amongst people working in those organisations. The government also says that we have had examples where newspapers within one group have editorialised different ways about who to vote for in an election. Within the Fairfax group, during the last election we had the Sydney Morning Herald advocating a vote one way and the Age advocating a vote the other way. That does not tell us anything. Editorials about who to vote for once every three years are really beside the point. The real decisions that are made by newspapers and television and radio presenters and management are not about who to editorialise with respect to every election; they are about choosing which issues to deal with and who to give coverage to. Issue selection and opinion maker selection are fundamental to the health of our democracy. Ensuring that all points of view that have any sort of significant traction in the community get a say within a public debate is critical. The only way you can guarantee that is diversity of media ownership.It is said that the world is changing and that, although throughout the OECD the majority of industrialised countries do have cross-media ownership laws, there are signs of relaxation. Yes, some things are occurring, but they are grossly exaggerated. In Britain there has been some minor relaxation, but they are keeping their cross-media ownership laws and they have a BBC that is much more heavily funded than our ABC and has a much stronger presence as a protection for journalistic integrity in their overall media. I might add that they have a much more liberal digital television regime which is ensuring that there are 24 additional channels available to consumers, as compared with, at this stage, virtually none in Australia. It is also worth pointing out that there are many views in the community which, although widely held and perhaps even reflective of a majority, do not get much of a run in our media today, even with half a dozen major media organisations. There are still plenty of Australians—I am not one of them—who support high tariffs. I do not see too many newspaper or media outlets giving expression to those kinds of views. Why? Because the owners, the proprietors and the people who edit them have a different point of view. At the moment we have about half a dozen major commercial media groups in this country and a variety of smaller organisations. I think that is adequate. It is not ideal, but it is adequate to ensure that we have a diversity of view and a diversity of voice in public debate. In effect, there are about half a dozen people who own megaphones. If you are an interest group in our society and you want to get a voice and expression to your point of view, you have to persuade one of those people to lend you a megaphone. If they do not, you might as well not exist, because you cannot convey your message. If we reduce the number of megaphones to three, which is what would happen under this legislation, that would have a devastating impact on the diversity of view in public debate and the capacity for people with different views to express an opinion. That would be the impact of this legislation.Significantly, it is acknowledged by one of its key supporters, Fairfax, who argue that if you add together the ABC you would have four pillars to uphold the importance of media freedom and diversity. They argue that you would get more quality. I would say that quality is in the eye of the beholder. Any publisher of a quality newspaper that devoted an entire op ed page of five articles to discussing the affair between former members of this place, Cheryl Kernot and Gareth Evans, really is not in much of a position to preach to anybody about quality. Quality tends to be in the eye of the beholder; it is a nebulous concept. But I can tell you what matters more, and that is diversity—ensuring that everybody gets a say and has an ability to express their point of view.There are significant impacts that further concentration of media ownership would bring in this community. Firstly, there would be a substantial reduction in bargaining power on the part of advertisers. That was acknowledged in the submission to the Senate inquiry from Grant Broadcasters, who own 15 regional radio stations. They point out that, if there is a handful of big media players, advertisers will be squeezed. The same thing happens with respect to journalists. If the number of prospective employers of journalists shrinks, the capacity for journalists to take an independent position, to courageously pursue stories, is further undermined by the fact that their choice of employers is very narrow indeed. We would have less effective consumer choice as a result of the cross-media ownership laws being abolished. We also have the threat of the non-media interests of the major media players becoming no-go zones, where there is in a sense a conspiracy of silence—where, because there is only a handful of major media organisations, there is a tacit agreement that each of them will not attack the other's non-media interests. That is not really a problem at the moment because there are half a dozen or so, and I do not think there is a risk of any great magnitude that that will occur. If it drops to only three, I think that risk becomes significant.It is no wonder that the Australian Consumers Association, the Communications Law Centre and the journalists' union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, do not support this bill. In fact, the government has had great trouble even getting its own backbench to support the bill. It is very difficult to find anybody other than media organisations—who may directly benefit from it as a result of their share prices rising—who do support the bill.There is another scenario that has not really had much airing in public debate about the cross-media ownership laws that I want to emphasise this evening. That is, if this legislation goes through, not only is it possible—indeed, it is highly probable—that we will end up in this country with only three major commercial media organisations but also it is quite possible that we will end up with a scenario where effectively we have only two, and that involves Telstra's ambitions. That scenario goes something like this. News Ltd, which makes no secret of its ambitions to own a TV station, acquires Channel 7 and maybe a few more radio networks—throw in however many radio stations you like. Telstra, which has sought to buy Channel 9 in the past, buys the Nine Network, buys Fairfax—which is another ambition which has been speculated upon in the business media recently—and, again, however many radio stations you like. If we end up with those two giant conglomerates, all that would be left is a small isolated Channel 10 amongst the existing media players, and a Channel 10 that is significantly less involved in public affairs, in politics and in the information market than the other two TV networks. So, in effect, you would end up in a position where, because of this legislation—and, in particular, the government's ambition to privatise Telstra—there would be two media giants in this country totally dominating public debate.It is important to understand that, in the absence of any consequential amendment to the Trade Practices Act, Professor Fels has acknowledged on numerous occasions that he sees these companies as operating in separate markets and that, therefore, there is no problem of market concentration if a TV network takes over a newspaper, or vice versa. So, under the Trade Practices Act, it would be perfectly okay for this to occur.The big question lurking behind this legislation is the future role of a privately owned Telstra. Telstra already owns half of Foxtel and has tried to buy the Nine Network. It is also interested, as I have said, in buying Fairfax, according to some business commentators. If the government succeeds in repealing the cross-media ownership laws and privatising Telstra, there is every prospect that we will end up with a single giant private company controlling three-quarters of Australia's telecommunications and much of its media. It would control the number one TV network, the totally dominant pay TV network, most of Australia's broadsheet newspapers and whatever radio stations it might choose to buy, on top of the vast bulk of our telecommunications services. This is where government policy is heading and it is clearly where Telstra's ambitions lie.In this scenario the one question that remains unanswered is: who controls this privately owned behemoth, this private Telstra? One possibility which clearly emerges is that the prospective absorption of the Packer interests into Telstra may occur in a way which enables the Packer family to assume de facto control of a privately owned Telstra. A privately owned Telstra is likely to have an extremely diverse share register dominated by institutions and by mums and dads. If the government honours its promise to prohibit foreign ownership and control of Telstra, it is quite possible that a shareholder owning five to 10 per cent of the Telstra share register could, with the support of institutional shareholders, effectively control the company. Rather than the widely contemplated prospect of Telstra taking over Packer, we may have a case of Packer taking over Telstra. Those who have traditionally expressed concerns about a Packer takeover of Fairfax should be aware that the Howard government's policy opens up much broader possibilities. A private behemoth of this kind would be too powerful for any government to effectively regulate. It would be able to charge whatever price it liked, stifle competition and dictate public debate. It would write political donation cheques that would be bigger than all the other political donation cheques put together.Regardless of which private interests ended up in control of such a giant private conglomerate, it would be a disaster for Australian consumers and a disaster for our democracy. Such a concentration of political and economic power should not be allowed. This legislation is the first step towards such an appalling outcome. And we all know what the second step is: legislation to privatise Telstra, notwithstanding inquiries into services in regional Australia or any other of the misleading attempts that the government is putting forward to suggest that it has not made up its mind. The government is committed to selling Telstra. It is committed to getting rid of the cross-media ownership laws. This is all about ultimately creating a giant private behemoth that controls much of our public discourse and almost all of the means by which that public discourse is delivered.Labor accepts that the cross-media ownership laws that have been in place for 15 years are not perfect; in fact, it is impossible to legislate perfection. But we do not accept that there is substantial evidence to show that those laws do significant damage to our economy or our society. They are needed because we have a restricted market. We have a law in the Broadcasting Services Act that effectively prohibits any further TV networks until 2007, at the earliest. So we have an artificially restricted market and, in the other areas of the media, particularly in newspapers, very high economic barriers to entry. It is when you have an artificially restricted market with an artificially restricted number of players that you need to ensure you do not get excessive concentration of ownership, and you need special regulation to ensure that. In this case, because the media underpins the health of our democracy, you need very strong regulation to guarantee diversity of ownership.It is worth pointing out that, because of the slow unravelling of the government's digital TV regime, we do not yet know how many TV networks we will have in a few years time. There is a moratorium on any new licences until 2007, but neither the government nor indeed the opposition has put forward a point of view, a policy that says, `Yes, we will have more licences' or `No, we won't.' That is only about four and a bit years away. The government is asking us to legislate with respect to a set of rules about cross-media ownership without knowing how many TV networks will be permitted within a few years time. We have indicated that we are happy to revisit these issues and to give consideration to possible changes to our media regulatory arrangements in the wake of dealing with the emerging crisis in the government's digital television regime but not beforehand. When we are in a position to have a clear indication of what the market will be allowed to deliver in terms of diversity and what, in practice, it will be able to deliver, that will be the time to give consideration to whether the regulatory regime that is there to guarantee diversity needs reform—but not now. It is totally premature.In putting forward this legislation, the government is trying to have its cake and eat it too. It has come forward with a bizarre set of proposals designated as rules regarding editorial separation. The theory is that company A will be able to take over company B but they will be required to maintain their editorial and news gathering processes entirely separately and the world will go on pretty much as normal. This is an entirely transparent device, a fig leaf, in order to pretend that the otherwise bad impacts that would flow from this legislation would not happen. But the person who will be administering the rules, the person to whom media organisations will apply for certificates allowing them to merge, is the same person—Professor Flint—who was quoted earlier this year as saying that he thought that the cross-media ownership laws should be abandoned altogether. So, in other words, the person who is supposed to police this is saying that there should be no rules. It also ignores the realities of power in the hands of proprietors. Ultimately, whatever rules of this kind you have, real power rests with owners and upper level management. It absolutely contradicts the government's main argument about convergence. On the one hand, we have the government saying that we need to get rid of the cross-media ownership laws because we are getting technological convergence and a lot of benefits can flow to the community and media organisations by being allowed to merge their activities and run things jointly across different platforms. That argument has an element of merit in it. It is a little bit premature, but it has an element of merit in it. On the other hand, the government is now saying, `But, in order to protect people from potentially negative outcomes, we are going to both use convergence as a rationale for passing this legislation but then legislate to prohibit it.' The government will then legislate to say, `But you are not allowed to actually merge your activities; you have got to maintain an editorial separation.' That is an obvious contradiction. It is also worth noting that there are very serious doubts about the constitutionality of the editorial separation rules, and I have no doubt that if the legislation passes they will be challenged in the High Court, because they go well beyond the broadcasting power.It has been acknowledged though that there is a sinister subtext. As much as these rules are a fig leaf, as much as they are a transparent device to pretend that the government is protecting diversity, there is a sinister subtext, which we all should be concerned about—and most of the major media organisations are. That subtext is that these rules could be used as a device by a future government with a tame ABA to directly interfere in the day-to-day activities of media organisations and to harass media organisations that the government does not like. The Australian Press Council, hardly a radical or vociferous organisation at the best of times, in February wrote a letter to both me and the minister pointing this out and strongly opposing these provisions. It is to the credit of media organisations like Channel 7 that they have ultimately decided to oppose this legislation very much because of the potential threat that the editorial separation rules entail to media freedom, to press freedom in this country.There is also an air of unreality about these rules. They entail requirements about reporting, about editing structures, about news gathering structures which change all the time in media organisations. They give the power to government to harass media organisations in ways that I think could ultimately lead to very serious interference in the affairs of the media and in the independence of the media. It is disappointing that some media organisations who have correctly pointed out these deficiencies and are very seriously concerned about them have chosen to put self-interest and the short-term issue of their own share price ahead of the longer term principle and the longer term threat to press freedom that these rules play, and continue to support the bill in spite of them.On the foreign ownership question, we indicated very early on in the debate that Labor was comfortable with the idea of relaxing the very restrictive foreign ownership rules at the moment. We do not support open slather, but we do not have a problem with some degree of foreign ownership of our media. But we did indicate that there was a need for protection on some fronts. The irony of the government's legislation is that it has chosen to abandon the foreign media ownership controls altogether and has put in place no protection. We now have a situation where a foreign proprietor who takes over an Australian media organisation does not have any restraint imposed on them about absorbing some of the news gathering editorial activities associated with that organisation into their operations overseas. But an Australian proprietor who takes over another media organisation does. So the editorial separation rules apply when Australian company A takes over Australian company B, but if the New York Times takes over Fairfax, for example, then there are no rules preventing that organisation from abandoning all of the foreign bureaus that Fairfax currently has and saying, `No, we'll just take the copy from the New York Times.' There is a range of other possibilities that could occur.The government said that it did not want to be unfair to existing Australian media organisations, it did not want to favour foreign owners by relaxing foreign ownership rules without relaxing cross-media ownership rules. In effect, what it is doing is favouring foreign owners by effectively not subjecting them to the same kind of editorial separation requirements when they merge or acquire an Australian media organisation and add that to their own media organisation, but the Australian media organisations do have to comply with them.Similarly, the proposals with respect to local news for regional media outlets are absurdly half-baked. They start from a reasonable principle, that is, to ensure that we have some degree of local news in regional media outlets. But they are implemented in an absurd way. If you are proposing to have a merger between two organisations in a particular regional market in two different media—say, a newspaper and a television station—then you acquire certain obligations with respect to local news. If there is no merger then you do not have those obligations.The absurdity of this position is that it is conceivable that you could end up with three competitors—say, three TV stations—in the one regional market who are subject to three different rules: one that has not merged so it has no rules about local news; one that has merged and was not doing any news before that now has acquired an obligation to do a certain amount of local news; and, one that is merged and already was doing a higher amount of local news than the minimum set in the legislation whereupon it is required to keep doing that level of news. So you could end up in a situation with three different rules for three different players who are all the same kinds of organisations competing with each other.They have pre-empted the report from the Australian Broadcasting Authority on this particular issue. It is a difficult issue. We do want to see greater localism; we do want to see a revival of local news. But we do not want to send those companies broke. So I think that, although the government's intentions are honourable in this instance, they have messed it up rather badly.Finally, I refer to the amendments that the government has circulated at the last moment. They have acknowledged the importance of having some cross-media ownership regulation by requiring that, within regional markets, you can only own two out of the three media; you are not allowed to own three. It is okay for people in the mass metropolitan markets to be subject to one owner who owns the No. 1 tabloid newspaper—or the only tabloid newspaper—and the No. 1 TV station and the only major commercial talkback radio station. That is all right in the major metropolitan markets. But, no, we need greater cross-media protection in regional markets. This is an implicit acknowledgment that their fundamental argument on the entire bill is wrong.There is also a minor amendment about disclosure of interests when people are reporting on issues associated with a sister company that involves the cross-media ownership provisions. I do not have any argument with that, other than to say that it is entirely peripheral to the substance of the bill. There is a minor change to requirements about on-selling a radio station and prohibiting particular restrictions being placed on what kind of format that radio station is enabled to broadcast. Again, I do not have any particular argument with that. It is just that it is entirely peripheral to the issues that are at stake in this bill.In conclusion, this bill is bad for our democracy, it is bad for competition and it is bad for public debate. It will lead to the number of big media organisations in this country shrinking to three. I think that is almost certain. Ultimately, it may lead to a situation, if the government is able to privatise Telstra, where we have two totally dominant media organisations in this country. It is fundamental to the health of our democracy, to the strength of our public debate, to having informed public opinion and to ensuring that all citizens have the possibility of getting an airing to their views and to their interests that we have a diverse media ownership in this country. This government is restricting that. It is seeking to undermine it. It is simply seeking to fulfil pre-election promises that it made to a few of the major media proprietors. There is no evidence whatsoever that this legislation will have a significant positive impact in any regard other than on the share price of some of the major media companies. But it will lead to an outrageous concentration of power in our society in media ownership and a substantial reduction in diversity of media ownership and ultimately a substantial degradation of our democracy. I call on all senators from the minor parties to join Labor in defeating this bill when it hits the Senate.17:19:007240Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002 is about modernising our media ownership laws. The reforms are about finding the balance between allowing Australia's media outlets to expand and explore new opportunities in a converging and highly competitive environment while managing strong safeguards to facilitate ongoing diversity of information and opinion. The government amendment will require all cross-media owners to disclose the fact that they have cross-media relationships, only allow a cross-media holder in a regional market to own two out of three of the newspaper, radio and free-to-air television in such a market and prohibit commercial radio contracts or arrangements that restrict the formats of such radio services.Over the last 10 to 15 years we have seen remarkable change within media and associated technologies such as the Internet, pay TV and digital broadcasting. Our laws that govern media ownership must reflect this change and offer a genuine, flexible regime. When the cross-media laws were first introduced under a Keating government, communications, broadcasting and information technology were nowhere near at the stage at which they are today. Consumers are no longer restricted to basic radio, free- to-air TV and newspapers. We have a broad cross-section of media options to choose from and that environment has experienced a period of rapid change, including changes to digitisation and transmission of video, image, sound and text. These changes have also led to the development of new services and businesses, and new mediums where opinions can be transmitted. Digitisation will enable new types of interactive services to be offered and reduce the costs of producing content. But it does cost an enormous amount of money to establish. So the reforms proposed in this legislation will help bring our laws up to speed and help Australia out of the Keating timewarp.Australian media industries are under increasing pressure to invest in digital technologies and to become more global. Preventing further foreign investment will restrict the capacity of local media to access technology and compete with overseas. But the current laws are a deterrent to investment. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002 will improve Australian media companies' access to capital, facilitate investment in new technologies, enable media companies to grow and expand in the new content driven, converging, global media environment and ensure that Australian consumers have access to high-quality media offerings. The reforms will improve Australian media companies' access to capital, facilitate investment in new technologies and enable media companies to grow and to expand. That is why this bill has received the support of industry.In its submission to the Senate inquiry into this legislation, Network Ten said:The foreign ownership limits have required reliance on complicated and unnecessary investment structures by preventing foreign investors from obtaining major interests in Australian commercial television broadcasters; and have inhibited both investment by foreign institutional investors and the ability of commercial television broadcasters to source capital from global capital markets.In addition—and for further reading—the Seven Network in its submission said:In Seven's view the rules are no longer as relevant or effective as when they were introduced. The existence of the rules is preventing the growth and competitiveness of Australia's media industries.All media outlets should be treated equally in respect of foreign ownership rules. Currently, less onerous restrictions apply to radio, subscription television and print than apply to commercial television.Removal of foreign ownership restrictions would improve access to capital, increase the pool of potential media owners and act as a safeguard on media concentration.When we look into the other media areas, News Limited had this to say:News has consistently supported the removal of media specific ownership and competition laws. In 2002, this regulatory change is overdue. While the current regime persists, valuable benefits are being denied to participants in, and consumers of, the Australian media industry. These benefits have arisen as a result of digital technology, the rapid growth and uptake of online services, the explosion of niche media and the impact of converging distribution paths.Another print media company, Fairfax, had this to say:John Fairfax Holdings Limited (Fairfax) ... supports removal of the cross and foreign ownership restrictions so that the media industry is regulated in the same way as other industries under the Trade Practices Act and the Foreign Investment Review Board.The industry itself is saying that these laws need to be changed. Current restrictions on foreign and cross-media ownership constrain Australia's media sector within outdated structures, while around the world media businesses are being driven by the imperative delivery of readily adaptable content across multiple platforms.The bill removes the restrictions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 on foreign entities owning or controlling Australian media, including newspapers. Australia's general foreign investment framework will continue to apply to television, radio and newspapers. Under the proposed reforms, the Australian Broadcasting Authority will be able to grant exemption certificates to applicants seeking to acquire media organisations that would otherwise represent a breach of the cross-media rules. Exemptions will be subject to applicants meeting requirements of maintaining separate editorial decision-making responsibilities so as to ensure diversity of opinion.When it comes to foreign ownership and control, the report from the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee made a very interesting point:The Committee believes that in relation to foreign owner influence, it is reasonable to assume that foreign owners will be motivated to maximise profits, rather than influence public opinion.I will repeat that:... foreign owners will be motivated to maximise profits, rather than influence public opinion.The report continues:Accordingly, it is to be expected that they would provide content with the aim of maximising consumer demand and therefore advertising revenues. There is, therefore, a commercial imperative for broadcasters to include Australian content.This is an interesting point to make about content and foreign ownership, because it is in the owner's interest to have local content if that is what the market wants. Going on TV ratings for many shows such as Blue Heelers, Kath and Kim or All Aussie Adventures, Australian content is enjoying strong public demand. So it is in the media's interest to make sure that they make the provisions.This bill will not reduce the level of Australian or local news content, regardless of the ownership. Under current cross-media ownership laws: a person must not control a television licence and a radio licence that have the same licence area; a person must not control a television licence and a newspaper associated with the licence area of the television licence; a person must not control a radio licence and a newspaper associated with the licence area of that radio licence; and a person who controls a licence A or a licence B subscription television licence must not have more than a two per cent interest in the other licence or be in a position to control that other interest. Rather than removing or amending these existing rules, this bill proposes the granting of exemption certificates.I have a particular interest in this bill from a regional perspective and understand the importance of maintaining a certain level of local news. These services are important for maintaining community identity and for ensuring that consumers have choice in the market. Unfortunately, in the Hunter Valley we lost one of our local TV news programs, Prime News, which also pulled out of the Wollongong and Canberra markets. This has left one local TV news station in the area, and it means that consumers have less choice.The amendments in the bill mean that cross-media exemption in regional areas can authorise cross ownership in only two of the three media types covered by the cross-media rules—television, radio and newspapers. This provision acknowledges that people in regional areas frequently have comparatively fewer choices of media outlets than those in metropolitan areas. As a result of this amendment, an entity could not own or control a radio licence, a free-to-air broadcasting licence and a newspaper in a single regional market. In order to address public concern about declining levels of local news and information programs on TV and radio in regional Australia, the bill provides that regional broadcasters that are subject to an exemption certificate will be required to meet or exceed prescribed minimum levels of locally relevant news, content and information—that is, at least five prime time news bulletins per week containing adequate coverage of matters of local significance, broadcasts of local community service announcements and the ability to broadcast emergency warnings if and when required.It is also important that there are adequate monitoring and compliance measures to ensure public confidence in the new provisions under this bill so that diversity of news and opinion will continue to be protected. Applicants will be required to demonstrate the existence of separate and publicly available editorial policies, appropriate and publicly available organisational charts, separate editorial news management, news compilation process and news gathering and interpretation capabilities. The Broadcasting Services Act allows for specific requirements to be placed on broadcasters as licence conditions. Provisions include financial penalties for breaches and suspensions and removal of licences in the case of repeated or severe breaches of licence conditions. The disclosure amendments enable the public to be aware of potential conflicts of interest that could arise when a cross-media holder broadcasts or publishes material related to a co-owned outlet. This addresses the concern that a cross-media holder will go `soft' when commenting on a co-owned outlet without the public being aware as to why this might be the case. This bill seeks to amend our media ownership laws by balancing competition and innovation with the need to safeguard diversity of opinion and the provision of local news and information services.The Labor Party opposes this legislation despite having told media proprietors before the federal election that it would consider removing the cross-media rules if it won the election. This is a clear example of Labor opposing government legislation for the sake of it, not doing what it knows is right, but being deliberately obstructionist in the hope that this will be electorally popular. Labor has put up no sensible alternatives, other than to say in its minority Senate committee report that there should be yet another inquiry into the media sector. Labor claims that it would support the removal of the foreign ownership restrictions but not the cross-media exemptions, knowing full well that it is unacceptable to the government, because it would favour certain media organisations over others.In contrast, the government amendments will enable greater investment in the Australian media, which in turn will enable a greater roll-out of new communication services to consumers. Australia should not be left behind in the ongoing development of technologies through our media laws. This bill will modernise our laws and help our local industry. Therefore, I commend it to the House.17:31:007243Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—For many years now, major media proprietors have wanted the abolition of the cross-media ownership rules. It is a long cherished goal of those who are part of the concentration of media ownership in Australia. If the government were to succeed in getting passage of this legislation through the Senate, it would be delivering that long cherished wish to those media proprietors. Let us be clear about this during the course of this debate. This legislation is not about reform of media policy; it is—to borrow a term from the government—about appeasement. It is about appeasing media proprietors who want a more liberal regime so that they can prosper in such a regime, and no doubt would express considerable gratitude to the government for allowing that to happen. That would all be at the expense of diversity. All members on this side of the parliament—and I see the member for Lowe is in the chamber—have been passionate champions of media diversity in this country. This government obviously has no commitment to maintaining and strengthening media diversity in this country. Reasons for that will become evident during the course of what I have to say this afternoon. I point out that, as shadow minister for innovation and industry, I have offered to be involved in discussions on how to provide greater competition in the Australian media industry. We have a long tradition on this side of the parliament of encouraging and fostering competition in Australia. We want to do that while maintaining diversity. If you have more players, you will enhance diversity as a result of that competition.In making those offers of looking at ways of increasing competition in the media market, I did not find a very responsive set of media proprietors or representatives of those proprietors, with perhaps one exception and that was the Seven Network. They seem to be interested in the idea of more competition in the media market in Australia, but I did not glean that at all from any of the others. The offer was there but there was not much interest in it. The reason for that is evident: there is no particular interest on the part of those who are involved in the concentration of media ownership in Australia in competition or in diversity. In that, they are at one with the government because the government is not interested in diversity of media ownership and is moving with this legislation to achieve an even greater concentration of media ownership in this country.A way of testing my proposition that there is not any real interest in competition and diversity on the part of the already quite concentrated media ownership regime in Australia is that, if there were interest in competition, there might be an open-minded or pragmatic attitude towards relaxing the foreign ownership rules. It turns out that there is very little interest. In fact, there is quite a lot of hostility to the notion of relaxing the foreign ownership rules while maintaining the cross-media ownership rules. In other words, the existing proprietors do not want foreign competition in this country. To a greater or lesser extent, proprietors are tending towards monopolist behaviour. It seems to me that in respect of foreign ownership restrictions, a foreign media proprietor is no more or less noble than an Australian media proprietor. Perhaps there is some merit in looking at the question of the foreign ownership rules, but there is no interest in that on the part of the media. Why? Because it provides greater competition.For too long, media ownership policy has been the captive of a political desire to keep media proprietors happy. The way policy has been developed for some time now is that some sort of concession is made to one media proprietor. That media proprietor becomes happy with the government but another media proprietor in competition with the first one becomes unhappy. The government then offers a benefit to that media proprietor. Instead of developing an open and clear framework for decision making that is based on the national interest and the interests of readers, viewers and listeners, the government is in this eternal process of handing goodies to one media proprietor, making another one unhappy and saying, `That's all right; we'll make you happy by handing you a bunch of goodies as well.' I cannot think of a worse way of developing and implementing government policy in this country.An example of failed government policy in relation to the media is the digital television and associated datacasting legislation. That legislation has failed because it has tried to anticipate technological change and where that would take Australian media and Australian consumers. Related to that, it has tried to anticipate the success in the market of these new technologies. Surely, at some point in time, the government will learn the folly of trying to develop legislation that is so prescriptive that it anticipates where the market might be headed. The far better approach to policy is to provide a stable and transparent framework that is not overly prescriptive but protects the national interest and the interests of the Australian people who are users of the media and, therefore, above all, maintains media diversity.Instead of that, the government is proposing a bill that it knows will fail. This bill is nothing but high farce. It is designed to fail. Why? The answer to that is that the government wants to say to media proprietors, `We are on your side. We—the government—are happy to see a concentration of media ownership in this country, but it was Labor who blocked it.' So they put forward a totally ridiculous bill, a farcical bill, that would require the operation of separate newsrooms independent of each other that would involve a very heavy level of interference in the editorial content of those newsrooms. How do we know that? Because the arbiter, the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, Professor David Flint, has already expressed publicly his view that there should be no cross-media ownership rules at all. So the proposal that the government is putting to the parliament is a proposal that is designed to fail so that the government can go back to media proprietors and say, `We did our best, but Labor blocked it. Support us during the term of this parliament and support us during the election campaign, because we are on the good side and Labor is on the bad side.'The reason that we have a different view is that we have a long and proud tradition of being committed to media diversity in this country. Under the government's legislation, the spectre is of one or two large media conglomerates in this country. Can you just imagine what that would mean for democracy and the ability to provide a variety of views to the community? Already there is a proliferation of conservative columnists in this country in existing media proprietors. These conservative commentators, under the guise of railing against political correctness, condemn anyone with an open or positive view about supporting racial harmony in this country. They say that supporting racial harmony is just being politically correct.When people on the Labor side of politics support multiculturalism, we get this criticism from conservative commentators, `You're just being politically correct.' When we support an apology to Aboriginal people, we get this commentary from conservative columnists that we are just being politically correct—as if it is now fashionable to the politically incorrect and to oppose racial harmony, to support division, to oppose multiculturalism and to oppose an apology to the Aboriginal people because it is some creation of political correctness.In the adjournment debate the other night I pointed to a classic example of this: the case of Janet Albrechtsen, who, Media Watch alleged, had inserted into an article relating to the gang rapes in Sydney an observation that somehow these gang rapes were a ritual of young Muslim men against white women. The allegation on Media Watch is that the journalist, Janet Albrechtsen, inserted the words `Muslim' and `white' in a quote from a French psychotherapist. I have been through that extensively and it is clear to me that that allegation is proven.I will take this opportunity to seek leave to adjourn the debate to allow government members and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to make some remarks about another piece of legislation that is returning from the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills7245R15687245Consideration resumed from 23 September.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (lines 5 and 6), omit “eligible unfunded institution”, substitute “eligible private institution”.(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 13 to 17), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) if the institution is a non-self accrediting institution—is a course which the Minister is satisfied meets the quality criteria in place in the National Protocols, based on the advice of: (i) an independent expert panel as established by the Minister with terms of reference and reporting requirements as prescribed; or (ii) an institution referred to in section 4. (3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 17), after paragraph (c), insert: ; (d) the matters prescribed under subparagraph (c)(i) shall include criteria for the appointment of an expert panel, including persons with extensive knowledge of higher education courses in the same or similar field, which is independent of the institution.(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (line 22), omit “eligible unfunded institution”, substitute “eligible private institution”. (5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (line 28), omit “eligible unfunded institution”, substitute “eligible private institution”. (6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 28), after the definition of institution, insert:National Protocols means the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes (first endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs on 31 March 2000), as in force from time to time. (7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 28), after the definition of institution, insert:self-accrediting private institution is an eligible private institution: (a) established under Federal, State or Territory legislation; and (b) which appears in column 1 of the table in subsection 98AA(1).(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 28), after the definition of institution, insert:non-self accrediting private institution is an eligible private institution: (a) other than one established under Federal, State or Territory legislation; and (b) which appears in column 2 of the table in subsection 98AA(1).(9) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (line 31), omit “eligible unfunded institution”, substitute “eligible private institution”. (10) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (lines 8 and 9), omit “eligible unfunded institution”, substitute “eligible private institution”. (11) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (line 11), omit “eligible unfunded institution”, substitute “eligible private institution”. (12) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (line 23), omit “Eligible unfunded institution”, substitute “Eligible private institution”. (13) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (line 24) to page 8 (before line 1), omit subsection 98AA(1), substitute: (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, an eligible private institution is an institution of higher education specified in the following table: Eligible private institutionsColumn 1Column 2self-accrediting private institutionnon-self accrediting private institutionBond University Christian Heritage College (Queensland)Melbourne College of DivinityTabor College (South Australia)(14) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (lines 10 and 11), omit “eligible unfunded institution”, substitute “eligible private institution”. (15) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (lines 18 and 19), omit “eligible unfunded institution”, substitute “eligible private institution”. (16) Schedule 1, item 20, page 9 (lines 9 to 16), omit section 98JA, substitute:98JA Eligible private institution to include information in annual report (1) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the end of 30 June in each year, cause an annual report to be prepared by each eligible private institution that offers an eligible post-graduate course of study. The annual report must include (but is not limited to): (a) evidence that the course requirements and learning outcomes are comparable to those of a similar field of study at an Australian university; (b) evidence of staff quality, qualifications, research output, refereed research publications and citation indices; (c) institutional governance, facilities and student services; (d) financial status and operation; (e) staff and student data; (f) equity plans and outcomes, for students and staff; (g) planning data. (2) The Minister must cause copies of any annual report prepared under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after completion of the annual report.17:44:007246Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 be agreed to and that amendments 3 and 7 be disagreed to. The government will agree to amendments to be moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in place of Senate amendments 2, 6, 8, 13 and 16. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House to first consider amendments Nos 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15, then consider amendments 3 and 7, and, when those amendments have been disposed of, consider amendments 2, 6, 8, 13 and 16.10000Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—There being no objection, we will follow that course of action.17:45:007247Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I move:That Senate amendments Nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 be agreed to.These amendments rename the category `eligible unfunded institution' to `eligible private institution'. The term `eligible unfunded institution' was used by the House to signify that, although students of the four institutions listed in the bill will be eligible for the Postgraduate Education Loan Scheme, PELS, they will not be eligible for public funding as a result of inclusion in the act. However, as these amendments do not fundamentally alter the intention of the bill, the government is prepared to accept them.17:46:007247Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—We agree with the minister's motion that Senate amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 be agreed to. These are the amendments that we moved in the Senate. We think that it is important to draw attention to the fact that, by extending the Postgraduate Education Loan Scheme to these students, they will in fact be receiving public funding. We think it is a more accurate reflection of the state of Commonwealth contribution.Question agreed to. 17:47:007247Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I move:That Senate amendments Nos. 3 and 7 be disagreed to.For the sake of the House, I will not speak at length about this. I would just like to say that these amendments relate to accountability and definitions in the bill. In relation to accountability, the amendments accepted by the Senate repeal the requirement that an eligible course of study must be accredited by a state or territory accreditation authority and replace it with a de facto Commonwealth accreditation process through a proposed independent panel. In the government's view these Senate amendments are fundamentally incompatible with the current intergovernmental agreement on higher education responsibilities and with the quality assurance framework agreed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. These agreements rightly give responsibility for accrediting the courses of non-self-accrediting institutions to the states and territories. In the government's view, the amendments would create a totally unnecessary duplicate layer of accreditation or pseudo-accreditation for the affected institutions at a significant cost in resources to both them and the Commonwealth. One of this government's key objectives for higher education is to eliminate bureaucratic duplication. That is a challenge that is certainly worth taking on. Accepting these amendments would, in the government's view, be a retrograde step.17:48:007247Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—We will agree with the government's proposition here, anticipating the amendments that I will be moving shortly. I am disappointed that the government has not agreed to these amendments which we moved in the Senate. I think we would have had a stronger process if the panels had been put in place, but I am pleased that we have been able to come to agreement on the other amendments which I will move shortly. Question agreed to.17:48:007247Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to Senate amendments Nos. 3 and 7, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question agreed to.17:49:007248Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I move:That Senate amendments Nos. 2, 6, 8, 13 and 16 be disagreed to and Opposition amendments 1 to 5 be made in place thereof.(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 13 to 17), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) if the institution is a non-self accrediting private institution: (i) is a course that is accredited by a State or Territory accreditation agency listed in the Australian Qualifications Framework Register of Bodies with Authority to Issue Qualifications; and (ii) is a course which the Minister is satisfied meets the criteria in place in the National Protocol for the Accreditation of Higher Education Courses to be offered by non-self-accrediting providers, based on the advice of the State or Territory accreditation agency listed in the Australian Qualifications Framework Register of Bodies with Authority to Issue Qualifications. For the purposes of paragraph (c), a part of an agency is taken to be an agency in its own right.(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 28) after item 12, insert:12A Subsection 98A(1)National Protocols means the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes(first endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs on 31 March 2000), as in force from time to time.(3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (before line 29), before item 13, insert:12B Subsection 98A(1)non-self accrediting private institution is an eligible private institution which appears in column 2 of the table in subsection 98AA(1).(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 9 (lines 9 to 16), omit section 98JA, substitute:98JA Eligible private institution to report information (1) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after 31 December in each year, require each eligible private institution that offers an eligible post-graduate course of study to report to the Minister, in an approved form, information regarding their operations during that year. (2) The eligible private institution must comply with a requirement under subsection (1) as soon as practicable. (3) The information provided under subsection (1) must include (but is not limited to): (a) information consistent with that required of any institution to which similar financial assistance is granted under this Act; and (b) further information consistent with that required of any institution under this Act, as determined by the Minister.Note 1: Section 108 requires any institution to which financial assistance is granted to provide a financial statement, together with an auditor's report.Note 2: The Minister may require statistical and other information under paragraph 18(1)(g). The Minister may also require further information relating to students in designated courses of study at the institution under section 58. (4) The Minister must be satisfied that the eligible private institutions have met these requirements and must table the relevant information in each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after receipt.(5) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (line 24), to page 8 (before line 1), omit subsection 98AA(1), substitute: (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, an eligible private institution is an institution of higher education specified in the following table: Eligible private institutionsColumn 1Column 2Self-accrediting private institutionsnon-self accrediting private institutionsBond UniversityChristian Heritage College Melbourne College of DivinityTabor College (South Australia)As I just indicated, we are pleased that we have been able to come to agreement with the government about the principles that were behind the amendments that we moved in the Senate to the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2002. They are not exactly as we might have wanted them to be, and of course we will continue to work on this issue, but I do think that we have been able to come to an agreement which will improve the bill.The starting point for our position on these and other questions for higher education is that priority should be given to public universities in the provision of public funds. This is particularly the case when there is significant unmet demand for places in public universities and when we know that our public universities are under significant financial strain. From our point of view, if there are additional resources to be put into higher education, they should go into our public universities.This bill represents quite a different approach by the government. They have initiated what really can only be said to be an ad hoc approach. As the minister said, in his own words, this goes some of the way to the government's full agenda for increasing the extent and availability of public subsidies to private providers. We obviously have a very significant difference when it comes to this fundamental public policy issue.The amendments that we are moving tonight do present the beginnings of a coherent policy, and as a result of the agreement with the government we are able to have them put into the bill. The original bill sought to single out just four private institutions. There is still no clear policy reason for that. It also provided no basis on which to revisit similar issues in the future. What we have sought to do is address two of the concerns that we had which, as far as we are concerned, go to the core issues of quality and accountability, two of the issues which were not addressed in the government's original bill.We strongly take the view that the public has a right to be assured of the quality of the education offered by institutions that receive public subsidies, and that includes the implicit subsidy that is attached to PELS loans—postgraduate education loans. We have introduced this important principle through our amendments that institutions must comply with the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes which were adopted by the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs in March 2000. I am sure that many in this chamber would agree that the protocols were a breakthrough in developing a consistent approach to higher education accreditation and to addressing some of the issues which the Minister for Education, Science and Training just referred to—the very difficult issue of shared responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the states. Most importantly, the protocols set a minimum standard which must be met in order to make sure that a degree of public confidence in the quality and reputation of Australia's higher education system is part of the way we deliver public funds. Protocol 3, which deals with courses offered by non-self-accrediting providers, establishes a range of criteria. Most important is that courses offered by non-self-accrediting providers must `be comparable in requirements and learning outcomes to a course at the same level in a similar field at an Australian university' and that it satisfies the requirements of the Australian Qualifications Framework. It also requires that institutions be financially secure and that responsibility for the course be taken by a fit and proper person. As far as we are concerned, this should not be the last word on the subject of quality assurance, particularly given that the national protocols are yet to be legislated in most states—there is still quite a bit of work to be done—and very few current accreditation processes took place under the new model. (Extension of time granted). Because we are concerned that this process has only just begun, we will be maintaining a watching brief on how these processes operate in practice, particularly with a view to refining them in the future.The task of ensuring public accountability for a public subsidy has also been left to our amendments. We strongly believe that, where the public provide funds to a higher education institution, they have a right to expect accountability on a range of issues that include, but go beyond, financial viability and the probity of governance structures. These amendments make sure that higher education institutions in receipt of Postgraduate Education Loan Scheme funds are accountable to the public, through the parliament, consistent with processes used for those higher education institutions that are already in receipt of public support. This is an important amendment to this bill.This approach does differ from that taken in the government's original bill, and it is also different from the amendments that we initially moved in the Senate; but what is important is that it creates an enduring link with the standards of accountability required of other higher education institutions, rather than creating a new list of activities about which providers are required to report. It gives the government a mechanism by which it can, amongst other things, gain assurance that these institutions do not discriminate against students or prospective students, that their staff are actively engaged in research activities—which should be the case in all institutions of higher learning—and that their curriculum design exposes students to a variety of views. I think we would agree that these are all fundamental characteristics of higher education.In an effort to get some good policy from this process, I am very pleased that we have been able to negotiate with the government and that negotiation has resulted in these amendments. As I said earlier, they do not exactly represent what we moved in the Senate, but we have been able to maintain the core of what we hoped to achieve and we have been able to accommodate the immediate concerns of the government. I want to make a couple of comments on some of the statements the minister made when he was responding in the second reading debate, particularly in the context of the broader higher education review that is under way. One of the things that the minister said was:The government's overall position in relation to Australian higher education is that universities are in quite a sound financial position. For many universities, that is not a particularly reassuring statement from the responsible minister. The problem at the moment is that we cannot get any evidence from the government that this is in fact the case. As I am sure the minister is aware, the minister's department has refused to release detailed information on universities' financial position, on the grounds that this would compromise commercial-in-confidence principles. I think this is particularly disturbing, given that these are public institutions receiving large amounts of public funds. As a result of the department's refusal to provide this information there will be a Senate inquiry. I hope that the government will recognise that it is very important that this information be released and that the public be reassured. If it is true that, as the minister said, universities are in a sound financial position, then let us have a look at the data so that we can all be reassured that that is the case.The minister also said the rationale for extending PELS to just four of almost 90 private providers of higher education is that `the amendment goes some way to addressing existing anomalies in the higher education system'. He then went on to say:This amendment will provide concrete assistance and a more level playing field for those in the community who have established these alternative institutions to meet their needs.(Extension of time granted) It seems from the minister's statements that the government accepts that public subsidies should be available to all private higher education institutions. The minister might like to respond to our concerns on this and indicate whether or not that is the case. Under this logic, PELS would be extended to all private providers, with the associated significant public subsidies. If that were to occur, the actions as a result of this bill, which see only four providers getting funding, will certainly give them a market advantage. What is the government's position on HECS or income contingent loans for private non-university providers? It is an obvious extension to this bill that they may have in mind, and if they do we would be keen to hear about it. We also have some concerns about the nature of the postgraduate programs. We understand that the government's explanation for the choice of two of the institutions in this bill, Christian Heritage College and Tabor College, getting access to PELS was that they provided teacher education programs. The minister suggested that I was confused about the objectives behind PELS; if I am confused, I am not alone.We have a real problem in this area, particularly when it comes to the training of new teachers. For example, a student enrolling in a graduate entry Bachelor of Education program would not be eligible for PELS, even where credit for that course was provided by a postgraduate Diploma of Education that might have been supported by either HECS or PELS. This area is more than a bit of a mess; we really do need to tidy it up. Contrary to the minister's assertion, the extension of PELS to these two colleges does not assist students undertaking initial teacher training. The reason I am raising this issue now is that it has significant broader relevance. A growing number of professions are requiring graduate awards for entry to those professions. Under current policies, students who have completed the undergraduate requirements may receive HECS support but may then be faced with full fees—they might be able to get PELS assistance, depending on who they are—when they go on to complete the compulsory graduate awards. If these awards are only offered in a non-university institution, such as the Law Society or the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the fees are not supported by income contingent loans; that is, unless this bill succeeds and such courses are provided by the institutions that are part of this bill. I would suggest to the minister that these are more than just anomalies, and they are problems that are made worse by the ad hoc nature of the bill. In summary, we still have a lot of work to do in this area. I would appreciate it if the minister were able to respond to the concerns that I have raised. If he is able to give us an assurance that we could see the financial state of our universities so as to be reassured that they are in good condition, then we would be happy to receive that information. I would also appreciate it if he could let us know what the implications of this bill are for extending PELS and HECS to private providers.18:05:007251Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—The government agrees to the opposition's revised amendments (1) to (5) to the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2002. These replacement amendments outline quite a reasonable approach to accountability and reporting requirements under these provisions, and they also make some adjustments to previous amendments of a relatively minor technical nature. In particular, the government is pleased to note that these amendments return to the states and territories the responsibility for accrediting the courses of non-self-accrediting institutions—to its rightful place. There is no longer any requirement for the Commonwealth to effectively duplicate that function. The government also welcomes the fact that the reporting requirements for eligible institutions are now consistent with the requirements for institutions that receive direct Commonwealth funding under the Higher Education Funding Act. They will no longer be required to repeat their accreditation on an annual basis. The government also notes that, although the more minor amendments—such as changing the term `eligible unfunded institution' to `eligible private institution' or splitting the table of eligible institutions into two subcategories—do not add anything useful to the bill, they also do not detract from it in any significant way. The government is therefore prepared to accept them.A key purpose of this bill, as members on both sides of the House would know, is to implement the government's election commitment to extend the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme to the students of four additional institutions: Bond University, Melbourne College of Divinity, Christian Heritage College in Brisbane—to which I know the member for Griffith, amongst others, has a very deep commitment—and Tabor College in Adelaide, South Australia.This will address the anomaly that students at only two of the self-accrediting higher education institutions in Australia do not currently have access to the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme. It will also extend the scheme to the two non-self-accrediting institutions providing a valuable service to Christian oriented education in their respective states. When you examine the courses PELS will support in those two institutions—there is an emphasis on ethics, divinity and education amongst other things—it is fair to say that many Australians would perhaps be prepared to support more scholarship in those areas. I know the opposition get irritated when I say this, but I have yet to meet anybody who has stopped me in the street to say, `Could you please do something to train more lawyers and provide more of my taxes to see that they are adequately trained?'There are a number of other important measures in the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2002, including additional funding for the sector, which it is keen to see enacted. The government is pleased that the opposition has seen the importance of these measures and has revised its position through the replacement of these amendments. I would also like to thank the opposition for taking a reasonable approach. As the member for Jagajaga said, in an ideal world the opposition would probably not support the amendments in this form; nor, I suppose, would the government. But I think we have a reasonable outcome here—certainly based on the fact that the government went to the Australian people last year with this as policy.A couple of other issues were raised by the member for Jagajaga. The policy objective behind PELS is quite clear: if you are doing a Diploma of Education in a Commonwealth funded place you are only required to make a contribution to the cost; otherwise, you pay the fee set by the institution. In either case the student can access an income contingent loan. The government's policy in relation to extending public support to approximately 84 private higher education institutions and facilities is that four of these institutions should be supported in this way. I welcome the fact that the opposition recognised this evening that, when the Commonwealth government lends money to students on behalf of Australian taxpayers, that represents a cost to the Commonwealth. That is so whether it is for the Higher Education Contributions Scheme or, as in this case, for the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme.One of the challenges among the many we face—and which we are examining through this review of Australian universities—is the role of private higher education institutions (Extension of time granted) in the spectrum of post secondary education provision in Australia. I have made the point to higher education providers—as I have to the 37 or 38 publicly funded universities, depending on how one counts—that it is self-evident that, if the government were simply to take the current quantum of public funds provided to publicly funded universities and distribute it across the sector, that would have significant policy consequences for Australian publicly funded universities. That is one of the issues being considered by us in the course of the review. The government's policy at the moment is to extend the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme to those four particular institutions. When we have conducted the review, which will conclude next month, the government will be developing some policy in this regard, and I as the minister will take it forward for the consideration of my colleagues.While I appreciate that the opposition has chosen to take a particular line on the review of higher education, I can only say again that the opportunity is there to make a constructive and earnest contribution to the review. I believe there are serious issues facing higher education—many more than those put up by the opposition in criticising what it thinks will be the policy outcomes of this. We have a higher education system at the moment that is serving Australia and its students proudly, and is now capturing about eight per cent of the international market. However, if you take a long-term view of Australia and its higher education institutions, it is obvious that, if we do nothing, we will be leaving the next generation with the prospect of mediocrity—where larger research intensive institutions are funded and administered in exactly the same way as nonresearch intensive institutions and regional universities face complex, unrecognised and financially unrewarded community service obligations.We also have problems in the sense that, while we have 25 per cent of 18-year-olds from the lowest quartile for SES in Australian universities at the moment, we still have a long way to go. I believe it is time to rise above ourselves and start to think about what will be required to build a strong university sector for the future. It is not just about public funding, and it is not just about the quantum of funding and the way the funding is delivered. It is about a whole variety of issues: differentiation; specialisation; commercialisation of intellectual property; the role of the humanities, the fine arts and literature in university funding and in higher education; the contributions made by industry, business, students and government; and, especially, the important role of regional institutions.The other issue is the financial position of the universities at the moment. The Commonwealth collects an enormous amount of data from universities, and the triennium position of the universities was published just before Christmas last year. We provide information on student enrolments and on the amount of public resources going into the sector, where those resources go and what sorts of activities they support. As I have said to the House before, the financial position of the 38 publicly funded universities is: $20 billion in fixed assets; $4.4 billion in liquid assets; a net operating position of $321 million, which has increased from $287 million in 1999-2000; borrowings in the sector of $426 million, which is two per cent of asset value; and an increase in total revenues by almost $2 billion in six years.I have said to people in the sector that, whilst I certainly recognise there are challenges being met by the sector, especially by some of the smaller non-research intensive institutions, none of us should ever forget that there are many people whose hard work funds what goes on in universities, who are finding their jobs are disappearing from underneath them as reform and change goes on, particularly in the outer suburbs of the cities, some of the regions and almost all of rural Australia. (Extension of time granted)So, whatever problems face Australian higher education, I have said to Professor Schreuder and his colleagues at the Vice Chancellors Committee, to Dr Carolyn Allport, the President of the National Tertiary Education Union, and to Moksha Watts, the President of the National Union of Students, that we need to seriously consider higher education in a societal context and we need to think about the changes that are being worked into Australia as much as we do about where Australian universities will be driving our future. Much of the 20th century was built on important infrastructure in roads, dams, railway lines and so on; it is quite obvious that as a relatively small country this nation's future will be built on ideas, knowledge, learning and commercialisation of those ideas in Australia. Unfortunately, as the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee, to its great credit, and others and I certainly recognise, trying to treat an institution like Monash University or the University of Sydney in exactly the same way as Charles Sturt University, the Northern Territory University or the Central Queensland University is a recipe for mediocrity in the long term. This government is determined to drive reform and I invite the opposition again to be active participants. I know that sounds like a very odd thing to say in the Westminster system, but the invitation is there.The last point that I want to respond to concerns the request for more detailed financial information from the university sector. The universities have provided quite detailed financial information about each of their positions to the Commonwealth. That is, of course, as the opposition would know, available to me as the minister. It has been provided to the government on the basis that it will not be released. I have offered, and I repeat it again, that I am very happy to write to each of the universities and ask them if they are prepared to have this information released. The sorts of information we are talking about include the forward forecasts for student enrolments and the prospects for revenues in commercial activity.If you think about it, education collectively represents about a $4.1 billion industry, and our universities represent about half of that value to the Australian economy. It is not in the interests of the universities themselves for all of that information, which they have provided on a confidential basis to the government, to simply be released by us. They are competing not just with each other. The University of New South Wales is not just competing with the University of Sydney; they are competing with universities throughout the world. I am more than happy to release that information if the universities agree to me releasing it on their behalf. I do not think that is an unreasonable position for the government to adopt. Indeed, the opposition could go directly to universities and I would be surprised if, on a confidential basis, any one of the vice-chancellors of the universities would not be prepared to speak at some length with the member for Jagajaga to let her know what their position is. Again, I thank the opposition for their cooperation on this bill.Question agreed to. Bills7254R14827254Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendment be considered at the next sitting.Bills7254R15347254Debate resumed.18:19:007254Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I wish to resume my observations in relation to the appalling behaviour of Janet Albrechtsen in deliberating adding the words `Muslim' and `white' when describing overseas statements in relation to gang rapes. This suited the objectives of the particular journalist, who obviously had strong preconceived views about this. When this was brought to the attention of the public, the journalist, Janet Albrechtsen, responded in the Australian online to the extent of five pages, but when it came to the central allegation that the journalist inserted the words `white' and `Muslim' there was no response to that. Yet in a footnote to her column today she said she has dealt with that in the Australian online.It is worth covering a couple of letters that have been sent to that forum commenting on Ms Albrechtsen inserting that and the evidence that she purportedly has provided. One is from Lloyd McDonald of Surry Hills, who says:It surprises me to see Jane Albrechtsen address the allegations made against her by Media Watch by personally attacking David Marr, rather than refuting the evidence that was presented.The charge was simple—deliberate distortion and misquoting of primary sources. This has since been backed up by the primary source itself, Professor Rassail.What is surprising is that now the facts are known, a reputable paper such as the Australian continues to run her work.I would have to agree with that observation. A similar letter has been written by Keysar Trad in the same forum, and it says in part:The fact remains Ms Albrechtsen: you misquoted people, I being one of them. And you trivialised the plight of Australian youth by misquoting me. What gives you the right to misquote others?The point here is that the government is proposing legislation which would further concentrate media ownership in this country by removing the cross-media ownership rules. The very valid fear on the part of members on this side of the parliament is that that sort of dishonest behaviour by a journalist—a conservative journalist, Janet Albrechtsen—will be condoned, that that journalist and other journalists like her will implement the agenda of particular media proprietors and rail against any alternative views on the basis that the alternative views constitute political correctness. That is not the society that I want to see in this country. I want to see freedom of speech, but you will only get freedom of speech if you get a diversity of media ownership. This government is trying to achieve exactly the opposite—a concentration of media ownership in this country—and we will not have a bar of it. We will not cop this legislation.During the course of the MPI today I mentioned that, in respect of a free trade agreement between Australia and the United States, there is a proposal that local content laws for Australian television be abolished. This is on the agenda for at least some American agencies. Can you imagine the government pursuing that agenda of abolishing local content rules while at the same time abolishing the cross-media ownership rules? I say on behalf of Australians: we, the Australian people, will decide what is shown on Australian television and the circumstances under which it is shown; we will not be dictated to by a free trade agreement with the United States that abolishes Australian content laws.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—So you are against a free trade agreement with the US?83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—We will not be dictated to by this government in seeking to concentrate media ownership in this country by doing deals with favoured proprietors. Diversity is at the heart of Labor policy on media. The minister opposite, the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, asked whether I have difficulties with a free trade agreement with the United States. Of course I have difficulty with a free trade agreement with the United States that abolishes the local content rules. In fact, I am opposed to the abolition of local content rules, yet it is on the agenda for any future negotiations of a free trade agreement between Australia and the United States. Government agencies in the United States have identified Australian local content rules as a barrier to trade between the two countries. You cannot have a free trade agreement without the abolition of those local content rules, in the context of the Minister for Trade saying everything is on the table and we will not countenance any exceptions. That is what the Minister for Trade has said.The government is abrogating its responsibility to ensure that there is free speech in this country and to ensure that the cultural integrity of this country is maintained, by its desperate desire to strike a free trade agreement with the United States and by its eagerness to accommodate the interests of media proprietors in this country by reducing media diversity, reducing the diversity of views, so that we end up getting columnists such as Janet Albrechtsen, in a smaller pool of commentary in terms of media ownership, railing against anyone who has the temerity to suggest that we might have an interest in promoting racial harmony and multiculturalism in this country. That is not the sort of Australia that I want to see this country develop into. It is about time the government stopped playing games and stopped putting ridiculous legislation into this parliament which it knows and knew at the outset would fail, so that it can go back to the media proprietors and say, `We're on your side and the bad Labor opposition has stopped it.' I have absolutely no reservations about voting against this legislation, because it is not in the national interest; it is in the interest of a few media proprietors. I think that the legislation ought to be withdrawn because it is inconceivable that any sane members of the Senate would even contemplate passing this appalling piece of legislation.18:27:007255Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002 touches at the heart of one of our fundamental freedoms, and I would have hoped that all members of this House would be committed to the advancement of free expression in this nation. But, given that the ALP is chained to a pledge that subjugates individual expression to group goals—a pledge that has distorted social democratic politics in this country for over a century—such a hope may well be naive. I saw that the member for Hunter was in the House a short while ago, and that reminded me that we had the example only very recently of the quashing of the member for Hunter's heterodox opinion on trade union membership and membership of the ALP. We wanted to hear more from him, but he was censored by the ALP—and I think the member for Rankin seems to overlook his own party's actions in this regard.Nonetheless, the Liberal Party does value free expression and recognises that it is a crucial characteristic of free nations. We also recognise that, without the broader apparatus of a free society, freedom of expression is worthless. Such a broader apparatus includes the sanctity of private property, the right to self-defence, democratic and parliamentary institutions, constitutionalism and federalism, freedom of movement, particularly of emigration, and the rule of law. Such freedoms cannot exist in isolation. In our modern society it is within the realm of the media that these principles must be acted out—after all, in a liberal democracy the media is the main channel between the governed and the government. It is the media, particularly broadcast media, which acts as a principal forum for public debate—that is, debate outside the parliaments—in 21st century Australia. It is therefore incumbent upon the Commonwealth, which is constitutionally empowered to legislate in this regard, to encourage the proliferation of media and the widest possible access to television and radio broadcast services and press outlets. The Howard government is determined to fulfil its duty and its commitment to the diversity and health of the media sector. This is reflected in the television black spot program, the extension of SBS TV to far-flung communities, the antisiphoning and the antihoarding laws for programming, the accelerated growth of community broadcasting opportunities and the encouragement of new technologies. Now the government is taking a further step to bolster free expression and encourage a wider diversity of programming, reportage and technologies. This bill achieves reforms that have been canvassed since 1996.Foreign ownership of media has always been a controversial issue. But today more than ever, I suggest, foreign ownership of media businesses is the friend of pluralism. The bill will amend and fundamentally reform Australian foreign and cross-media ownership and the regime that governs it. We ought to remind ourselves that at present that regime mandates that a person not control TV licences whose combined coverage area exceeds 75 per cent of the total population or more than one licence in a licence area; that non-Australians must not control a TV licence directly or indirectly; and that total foreign interest in a TV broadcaster may not exceed 20 per cent. Restrictions are also placed on foreign directors and multiple directorships. A person may not control more than two radio licences in the same licence area and, as with TV, multiple directorships are restricted. Cross-media ownership is also severely restricted.In response to the previous speaker, despite his hollow protestations, the regime of those opposite did not prevent News Corporation from controlling 70 per cent of newspaper circulation in this country. But, as to broadcasters, currently section 60 of the Broadcasting Services Act prevents a TV and radio licence owner—but not, it should be noted, public broadcasters like the ABC or SBS—from having those licences in the same area; and it prevents a TV licence owner who also owns a newspaper from operating both in the same location, with the same applying to an owner of both a radio licence and a newspaper. At present foreigners may not have an interest exceeding 20 per cent in a subscription TV broadcasting licence and total foreign interest cannot exceed 35 per cent.The bill before the House will ameliorate many of the problems associated with this existing anachronistic regime. The reforms will enhance the possibilities for investment in Australia's media industries. They will also encourage greater competition—and this is to the advantage of the viewing and reading public—continuing diversity and a local focus. Should the reforms not pass through this parliament, the effect is likely to be less investment and less take-up of innovative technologies. Freeing up broadcasting rules and regulations is in the interests of consumers, who will benefit from the resulting flow of money and ideas. Indeed, allowing foreigners to invest in domestic media is the best guarantee of competition and a plurality of views.I think we ought to acknowledge that keeping foreigners out of the communications business is nothing new and certainly it is not confined just to Australia. In the 1890s the French government banned foreign ownership of the pigeon post—and I guess that is how the ALP would like things to stay. Pigeons gave way to cables, satellites and the Internet, but controls on foreign ownership stayed. Thankfully, times have moved on—well, on this side of the House times have moved on—and these reforms will bring the law into line with the contemporary media market in this country. This restrictive regime, which was introduced in 1987 and reiterated in 1992, just does not meet the needs of a nation in which pay TV consumption has increased fourfold in six years to almost 21 per cent of all households and over two-thirds of homes have a personal computer, with over half having access to the Internet; it is estimated that 72 per cent of all Australians aged 16 or over now have online access. Also, alternative media sources, from magazines to overseas journals to e-zines to blogs to the specialist services of the SBS and ABC, are all growing exponentially.The reforms themselves deal with foreign ownership, cross-media restrictions, editorial separation, localism and enforcement options. With regard to foreign ownership, the reforms will simply make the media sector subject to the same laws that apply to commercial radio and newspapers—namely, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. As for cross-media regulation, the Australian Broadcasting Authority will be empowered to grant exemption certificates to applicants. These certificates will allow holders to avoid the restrictions imposed on cross-media ownership but only if the conditions outlined in the certificates are properly met. As such, the ABA will only issue certificates if separate editorial functions are maintained in relation to the different media operations. Such a separation requirement must be met within 60 days of the certificate becoming active. Furthermore, the government's amendments to this bill arising from the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee inquiry will require that, in certain circumstances, the holder of an exemption certificate must disclose their cross-media holdings by way of the business affairs model of specific disclosure or the regular disclosure method. This amendment will ensure that the public is able to act as discerning consumers in choosing between media outlets and in evaluating references to co-owned operations.Regional consumers whose access is necessarily limited by the broadcast licensing area system will be further protected by a barrier to regional media operators obtaining a cross-media exemption certificate for all three media: radio, TV and newspapers. The bill requires that, to demonstrate editorial separation, the two media entities must have separate publicly available editorial policies, appropriate publicly available organisational charts and separate editorial news management, compilation, gathering and interpretation. Editorial separation does not deny the possibility of sharing resources or similar cooperation, but it does prevent reduction in media sources by way of consolidation; nor do these reforms inhibit the application of Australia's competition laws to media organisations.A potential barrier to broadcasting diversity that was identified by the Senate committee—namely, contracts or arrangements that restrict program formats of commercial radio—has been dealt with under the government's proposed amendments. Such contracts or arrangements will be voided, and the ABA can impose hefty fines. So, too, with localism, as the reforms contained in this bill will ensure the maintenance of current or minimum levels of local regional news and information. Where a regional broadcaster is subject to an exemption certificate, they will be required to maintain existing local programming. In the event that no local programming is presently provided, the ABA will prescribe a minimum level—and this includes local news and weather bulletins, local community service announcements and emergency warnings.We should not overlook the ABC and its role in considering this issue. As the Managing Director of the ABC, Mr Russell Balding, said in a speech to the Melbourne Press Club last week on the topic of the ABC generally, but on media diversity specifically:It has been said many times before that a strong and healthy media is fundamental to our democracy, fundamental to our freedom of speech, and fundamental to the enrichment of our lives.He went on to say:... any definition of media diversity which does not include the ABC is meaningless.No other media outlet has the universal reach of the ABC, particularly throughout regional Australia. The ABC will remain crucial to preserving diversity of voices and views in all parts of Australia, not just the larger cities.Mr Balding went on to say:The ABC is already essential for all those one newspaper towns across the country. During the possible reformation ahead, it will be needed more than ever—particularly for news and current affairs which remains free from commercial and political influence.So in this debate we must remember everyone's ABC.For the purposes of enforcement, reliance will be placed on the present complaints procedure of the Broadcasting Services Act under which complaints can be directed to the ABA. If the ABA finds that a person has breached the terms of an exemption certificate, penalties will apply ranging from fines of several million dollars. The ABA may also act to force a person to sell shares or divest themselves of an asset so as to remedy any breach.In broadcasting, as in telecommunications, an open market is the best guarantee of competition, particularly these days with multichannel TV and the Internet and the multiple sources of information available to consumers. Restrictions on foreign investment and cross-media ownership have the same perverse effect as protecting any other sort of market. These reforms will act to protect and expand free expression in Australia, and I commend the bill to the House.18:39:007258Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise this evening to strongly oppose the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002. What is this bill all about? In my view, today we are having a funeral for the public interest. It is often said that it is a truism in politics that those who carry your coffin in politics are usually the ones who put you in it. The government today have certainly put the public interest in the coffin and the coffin is being carried by the pallbearers—namely, Senator Alston and the member for Gippsland, who is here tonight, who represents him in this chamber, and the Prime Minister. This bill is wrong; it is wrong because it will change Australia's cross-media ownership laws that Labor put in place in 1987 to allow a media proprietor to own and control newspapers, television stations and radio stations in the one market. I do not believe that that is in the public interest, nor is it good for Australia's democracy. I have been speaking out on this for some time. No credible public interest argument or evidence exists to support what the government and its backers are trying to achieve with this legislation.Australians do not want to wake up one day to find the same person owns and controls the dominant television station and radio station and newspaper where they live. I first raised my opposition to the government's unspoken agenda regarding the legislation with my question No. 11 dealing with commercial media ownership in Australia, which appeared on the first Notice Paper of this parliament on 13 February 2002. It was addressed to the Prime Minister and it asked him, among other things, whether he could guarantee that such changes would not lead to a further concentration of media ownership in Australia. If so, how? If not, why not? The Prime Minister's slippery answer to my question appeared in Hansard, finally, on 17 June and explained that the legislation was designed to allow:... exemptions to be granted to the cross-media rules if undertakings are given that companies will maintain existing levels of locally produced news and current affairs in respect of radio and television and that separate and distinct editorial processes are put in place. There was no mention of the dominant city markets. The Prime Minister knows and the 3,500 constituents in my electorate of Lowe who signed my petition against this bill know that that answer is nonsense. This legislation is a betrayal of trust, a betrayal of the public interest; it is about selling Australia's democracy for 30 pieces of silver. It is not just about caving into the pressure of media moguls; worse, the government has gone out of its way to promote its lust for greater control and influence over this parliament, not to mention its greed.Yes, before the last election the government expressed its intention to reform Australia's media ownership laws. But there was no mention of the real agenda, nor any honest effort to explain what it really meant. Where did it spell out to the Australian people that the government was prepared to allow media moguls to own television stations, radio stations and newspapers in the one market? A diverse media is critical to our democracy. The media is far more important than a simple commodity. It is precious, and a healthy media is fundamental to any democracy. So we need special laws to guarantee more, not less, major media players in Australia. Australia's existing cross-media ownership laws provide that guarantee. Under these laws, we have around six major commercial media players and we have a healthy democracy. Australians already have access to a diverse source of information and opinion. This bill allows for a substantial concentration of media ownership in Australia, and I think it is frightening.The University of New South Wales Communications Law Centre accurately describes the impact this bill will have on Australia's media—and I quote:This bill will have a serious impact on news markets in Australia. In cities as large as Brisbane, Adelaide or Hobart, there is only one company that provides a local daily newspaper. This bill allows the same company to own one of the television stations, a couple of radio stations or both. Similarly radio stations and television stations can be co-owned. The result is further concentration of ownership, and no amount of disclosure will offset that.The government understands this impact all too well but it does not care. This explains the token amendments the government has made to the bill since it was first introduced, but does not explain why the government persists in promoting the fantasy that Internet access makes the current cross-media laws unnecessary. That is a load of rubbish. We all know that most Australians get most of their news and information from traditional media. In the morning they turn on a radio station, during the day they read a newspaper and at night they watch a free-to-air broadcast on commercial television. PBL's Channel 9 Network proudly boasts that more Australians get their news from Channel 9 than from any other source. Under this bill, this will permit PBL to own even more of the media in Australia. The effect of the bill would be to create three huge media conglomerates based around our three commercial television networks. One possible nightmare scenario under this bill is that Telstra could purchase Channel 9, Fairfax and a major radio network; News Corp, who already own the bulk of our tabloid newspapers, could take over Channel 7 and a major radio network. That would leave Australia with two enormous media giants and one decidedly smaller Channel 10. This scenario will inevitably lead to a converging of news production within these organisations and mergers between news organisations.In the words of the former deputy Liberal leader and Minister for Communications, the honourable Neal Brown QC, in an article published in the Age newspaper in May this year, titled `No, Minister: Alston gets it wrong':The whole thing is geared in favour of media companies that will naturally want to get bigger, extend their influence and employ fewer peopleThe Senate inquiry into this bill saw the vast majority of witnesses criticise the bill. Many witnesses gave evidence that the bill would lead to a concentration of media ownership in Australia and a reduction in media diversity. Consumer groups, unions and smaller media companies opposed the bill on these grounds.If this bill becomes law Australians will be left with a poorer quality media. Investigation and information will become the exception and `cash for comment' and convenient self-censorship will be the rule. Australians will be stuck with an unhealthy fast food style media that tells them what to think. As Neal Brown QC described:Journalists beware: your job may disappear in a fog of `sharing resources'. Public beware: what you will get if this goes through will be a giant, concentrated news service where tonight's TV news will be tomorrow's leftovers for the press and radio.If one proprietor dominates the popular sources of news and information there is only one inevitable consequence. That is, when the reporting of the truth adversely affects the private or commercial interests of the proprietor the truth will always comes second to protecting those private interests.Many proponents of this bill have blindly argued there are no negative impacts of concentrating media ownership in Australia into fewer hands. If that were true why have there been so many ridiculous suggestions raised by those same people about how editorial independence can be protected under Professor Flint when this bill becomes law? For example, Gerald Stone in a contribution to the Sunday Telegraph on 17 March this year argued:... each media corporation appoint its own, staff-elected ombudsman with the power to investigate all complaints and recommend a fair resolution to any problem.Mr Stone concludes:... he or she could be trusted to do the right thing by both print and TV journalists without standing in the way of progressI say: how can a person on the same payroll as the people he or she is investigating be trusted to do the right thing by the public interest at the possible expense of his or her employer?He who pays the piper calls the tune. What does that mean? Quite simply, it means that it is the media proprietor who can ultimately determine what can be said or what cannot be said, what can be published or what cannot be published, what can be viewed and what cannot be viewed and what can be listened to and what cannot be listened to. Obviously it is the media owner who has the ultimate power of veto on what their journalists publish or broadcast. No journalist is in a position to resist the power and influence of his or her boss. This legislation ensures there will in fact be fewer employers of journalists and fewer journalists willing to ever speak out against their employer's agenda when they believe that it is in the public interest and not their employer's interest.The other danger this legislation will create is the potential for media owners to further influence public opinion, especially political opinion, to suit their own economic imperatives. However, I would never dare to suggest this piece of legislation is a down payment for continued favourable coverage from selected powerful media proprietors.I am indebted to Mr Roger Coleman, proprietor of Midwest Radio Ltd and owner of 2L-T and KISS 95.3 FM Lithgow and Blue Mountains, as well as proprietor of a number of magazines and weekly newspapers in Mackay. Mr Coleman directed me to a study in the United States of America by the Harvard School of Press and Politics Research and CREST Oxford University on average margin influence of media in UK and USA elections. I cite from Mr Coleman's summary of this research:... at the existing level of media concentration in metro and regional areas in Australia, unlike the more diversified UK situation, that over twenty-five per cent of all post war Australian elections have been decided by media editorial or proprietor biases. The question is whether this influence should be allowed to rise to 30 per cent, 50 per cent or more of future elections, by way of a reduction in the number of voices independently owned.Mr Coleman goes on to say that:... in the event of cross media relaxation Australia will then move to greater media proprietor and editorial influence. In the cities of Adelaide, Brisbane local and metro daily newspapers are monopolies or close to monopolies. In Sydney the combined News Corporation competition suburbans and metro readerships are already at ... 10 per cent maximum.In regional Australia some towns only have a handful of media outlets and allowing one company to own most of them will seriously inhibit public debate. Only the government and predictably servile agents like the current Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, Professor Flint, believe that ownership is not important in determining opinion in media operations. The Productivity Commission found:... the likelihood that a proprietor's business and editorial interests will influence the content and opinion of their media outlets is of major significance. The public interest in ensuring diversity of information and opinion and in encouraging freedom of expression in Australian media, leads to a strong preference for more media proprietors rather than fewer.This bill is conceptually flawed. There is an editorial separation test requiring that cross-media owned companies must meet certain separation standards. Ostensibly this is meant to ensure that cross-media owned companies maintain newsrooms that are independent of each other. This thinking is shallow.As I have said, ownership is the key determinant of editorial policy, not the maintenance of separate newsrooms. In any case, what kind of independent umpire would Professor David Flint be when applying such an editorial separation test? As I have said in this House previously, this is the same Professor Flint who while presiding over the `cash for comment' inquiry also saw no conflict of interest when he appeared on the John Laws program to argue the no case in the referendum on Australia becoming a republic. The `cash for comment' inquiry, among other things, went to the heart of influence of the media.If this bill becomes law, I ask: how could anyone have any confidence in Professor Flint being able to separate newsrooms from their owners? I do not accept his lame response to my questions on notice about this matter that he stood down from the inquiry. He showed in that case a monumental error of judgment, and we all know that he has subsequently become the self-appointed spokesperson for the government on a whole range of issues. So you cannot trust Professor Flint.There is also a more sinister element to the editorial separation test. For the first time in our history, it allows for direct government interference in the operations of the media. The bill allows for the editorial separation test to be administered by the ABA, who may inquire into the editorial organisational structure and news making processes of cross-media owned companies. In my view, this is a dangerous precedent for media policy. I again refer to the University of New South Wales Communications Law Centre, and I note the observation made by the Director, Dr Derek Wilding:... that the Senate inquiry into this bill revealed widespread opposition to the proposal for a certificate system operated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Industry didn't like it because they see it as an intrusion into their business practices ... public interest advocates rejected it because it is a wholly inadequate means of ensuring diversity.This is a dangerous precedent for media policy. It has been criticised by both the Australian Press Council and Fairfax as an unwarranted interference in the media by government. This bill allows direct government interference in the media. This should not be countenanced in such a strong democracy as Australia. The role of the media in fairly and objectively presenting news and information is crucial to the public interest and to our democracy. It is totally inappropriate to have the ABA, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or any other government agency controlling or manipulating our media laws. Responsibility for the media must always rest with the federal parliament.This bill should be defeated because it concentrates Australian media into fewer, more powerful hands; it allows media proprietors to expand their influence on Australian public opinion; it will result in fewer and poorer quality newsrooms; it facilitates unprecedented interference by the government in the operations of the media; and the government did not have the courage to submit such fundamental changes to public scrutiny prior to the last election. I again agree with Dr Derek Wilding when he says:The government should abandon this bill and start again. New media and the Internet have not yet revolutionised news reporting—most people still rely on television, radio and newspapers. The ... cross media rules serve the current media environment and should remain until the government is prepared to consider a genuine exploration of a robust media-specific public interest test. Anything else just serves the interests of media owners.I have been speaking about this for some time and, when parliament resumed—as I said earlier—on 13 February, I put question No. 11 on the Notice Paper to the Prime Minister. The dominant news media companies in Australia are News Limited and PBL. A lot of people would not realise that, to give you some examples, News Limited own two-thirds of the capital city and national newspapers, almost three-quarters of the Sunday newspapers, almost 50 per cent of the suburban newspapers and almost one-quarter of the regional newspaper market. In addition, they have a one-quarter share in monopoly pay TV and news interactive online and additional media interests in AAP information services. The other big player, PBL, own and control three metropolitan and one regional television licence, giving them a reach of more than half of the potential audience. In terms of pay TV, PBL—like News Limited—have a one-quarter interest in monopoly TV and a one-third interest in Sky News. PBL publish 65 magazines, and their share of the circulation of the top 30 magazines is approximately 40 per cent. They also have the joint online operation known as ninemsn.Just how much more of the media in Australia do we have to give the big media moguls? Effectively, under this legislation, it is quite obvious that PBL want to get their hands on Fairfax so they could own the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, and they could own any number of radio companies throughout Australia. In the worst scenario, under this legislation, you could find that News Corporation could buy out most of PBL. If you think it is bad enough under the existing system, imagine what this legislation could do.I noted that John Lloyd, in the Financial Review of 23-24 February this year, reminded readers that the media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, the Prime Minister of Italy, came to power because he owned half of Italy's major TV channels and that now, as Prime Minister, he controls the other half. This is dangerous. I am not suggesting that the owners of News Limited or PBL are interested in politics—I think they are too smart as business operators to get into politics—but they want to be able to pull the strings and to have control and influence over this parliament. I think this is a dreadful threat to our democracy and a dreadful threat to the public interest. The government should be flogged for running their agenda and for, worse, having a servile agent like Professor Flint advocating that he knows how to separate newsrooms from their owners. As I said earlier in this debate, he who pays the piper calls the tune.If the government were genuine about wanting to provide competition, they would respond to the invitation by the shadow minister to relax foreign ownership laws so that we could get some real competition into this country instead of continuing the oligopoly that exists under the likes of Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch. It is not in the public interest to allow that to continue. We need to get more proprietors—whether they are from North America or Europe—to provide serious competition. That will ensure diversity of opinion and will promote a very healthy democracy.What other industry do we have in Australia where we are forever looking after the owners and not doing anything to allow anyone else to get into the market? Why is it that, for so long, both sides of this House have danced to the tune of the major media moguls in Australia? I think the time has come to deal with this seriously and to change foreign ownership rules to provide competition. I do not see that the so-called problems that the government talks about are actually problems; I see them as serious opportunities to change our foreign ownership laws so that we can provide more competition to the media players in Australia to get an even greater diversity of news and information, which will promote the public interest and promote democracy in Australia. I think the government has to be caned for this legislation. I can assure you that the media owners will not do the government any favours. (Time expired)18:59:007262Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002 is far too serious to take the last contribution too seriously. We have a proposition which is aiming to take forward what seems to be a shared aspiration for an improved media access and diversity. Everybody talks about it. Everybody is looking for more of it. Whenever a step is made to bring about that change, every element of it is opposed, particularly by the Labor Party. I remember back in 1996-97 when we had cross-media and foreign media ownership conversations in this parliament, in the halls of Canberra and in places of influence around the country. The hysteria that overcame the country was that there would be this horrendous new world where two media owners would rule every thought we had because they would have their fingers all over the media mechanism and medias available to them. That was going to bring Australian life, as we knew it, to an end. We know what happened to that. That was where, again, the Labor Party viewed policy development as a substitute for policy analysis by looking at who might get what and what might happen. This is the biggest `if' I have ever heard. `If this happens and if that happens, and then if that happens, we will end up with a horrible situation.' What is the proposition of the Labor Party? The proposition of the Labor Party, as articulated by the member for Lowe, is to bring it back into this place. Bring it back into the Keating media policy where you just checked out your mates and dished out opportunity, good fortune and largesse depending on how friendly you were with Prime Minister Keating. What kind of media policy is that? What kind of an opposition proposition is that?Let us go back to having the parliament, the executive, dish out preferential treatment to its favoured media proprietors and open the gates to foreign investment. That is the proposition the Labor Party have put forward tonight. That is what they are advancing as their substitute for a policy framework that seeks to pursue media access and diversity. What is wrong with that? We have tried that. The Keating government tried dishing out favours via the Prime Minister of the day and that is what happened. Now we have a proposition that says, `Open it up to foreign investment.' Isn't it remarkable? The Labor Party are out there saying, `You could not possibly sell Qantas to a foreigner. It will damage an Australian icon. How horrendous is that? The world will come to an end. Our aircraft, our great safety record will come to an end if a foreigner has a greater stake in Qantas. You cannot possibly have foreign investment in Qantas but sure, throw open the floodgates to our media outlets.'These are the same outlets that the member for Lowe and others before him from the Labor Party have said cannot withstand a transparent regime like this, because there will be such mischief where proprietors will be telling everybody what to do. There could not possibly be editorial independence. There could not possibly be a way of delivering diversity, so horrible are these media proprietors. The Labor Party proposition is to not even have them as Australian citizens. Open the floodgates to foreign investment, is what the Labor Party is putting forward.Contrast that with what we are debating tonight which is a measured proposal to simultaneously relax the foreign ownership and the cross-media arrangements. Why is that important? We would like some of the Australian media proprietors or Australian citizens generally to get involved in contributing to that improved and more delicious media access and diversity that everybody talks about. Everybody talks about it. The only problem is, if you try to do something about it, there are always a dozen Labor reasons why it will not work.We have heard examples about how, under the current regime, we have single newspaper cities and how horrible that is. Wouldn't it be even more terrible if another newspaper were to come to those cities and it happened to be owned by a proprietor who was active in another media? Surely two newspapers would be better than one. Surely that would be a step towards the media access and diversity which we all talk about as being important. Let us put the framework in place to make that a possibility. Let us recognise that history has not been kind to prime ministerial dabbling. Let us not go down the path again where depending on how favourable and friendly you were with the Labor Prime Minister you got a go in the media in this country. We are long past that. We are long past trying to have that kind of closed shop, sweetheart deal, Kirribilliesque way of going about deciding what the media policy in this country should be. What we have before us tonight in this amendment bill are proposals to reform the cross-media ownership regime and also the foreign investment regime. The member for Lowe said, `Why hasn't this been canvassed?' I do not know what he was doing during the election campaign. Maybe aircraft noise affected the reception in his area, but the government was quite up front and open on 29 August 2001 in articulating a comprehensive review of the cross-media and foreign ownership rules. It went further to say the minister indicated the government would grant exemptions in respect of cross-media ownership if it obtained undertakings relating to the level of locally produced news and current affairs in respect of radio and television, and separate and distinct editorial processes were in place. That was what was articulated in amongst the government's election policy on broadcasting.We had a policy on broadcasting, member for Lowe. What did Labor have? Nothing. They were hoping to hold back that deal where if—heaven forbid—the Labor Party snuck into office, they could go and have some chardonnay at Kirribilli and work out—which is the history of the Labor Party—sweetheart deals with their favourite media proprietors, freezing out anybody else who wants to deliver on improved media access and diversity. That is the form of the Labor Party and that is no doubt what would have happened had the Labor Party been elected.The proposition here is to have a transparent set of rules and an opportunity not just for the executive, the Labor Party power brokers, to decide these things but an opportunity for all Australians to engage in questions about editorial separation and media diversity. I will come back to those points shortly. At the heart of it is an authorisation of the Australian Broadcasting Authority to grant cross-media exemption certificates where they are applied for and where they meet certain requirements. The holders of those certificates need not to be in breach of the cross-media rules in relation to the media entities they control. There are, as I mentioned, a number of conditions that they must certify. This is the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Did the member for Lowe and the Labor Party speakers go to the heart of what that machinery would do? No, they go for a character assassination—get stuck into the individual. That is the way the Labor Party deals with this debate. Create a phoney monster and then slay a phoney `monster of a dozen ifs'. We have heard that we will end up with two oligopolies running the media in this country. Get into the character assassination where you have some regulators with a responsibility to implement the laws of parliament.That is the formula—create a fictitious outcome and explain how horrible that is and therefore claim that these rules are not worth discussing and get stuck into the players that have a role in administering this regulatory framework.The bill before the House provides that a certificate may be issued by the ABA if it is satisfied that the conditions included in the application will meet the objectives of editorial separation for a set of media operations that are concerned. What we have put out there are those sets of editorial separation requirements—we have actually articulated them. Everyone says, `Give us editorial separation.' We have actually gone a step further and tried to describe what that would look like. Not only have we tried to describe what it would look like, we have put the information into the public domain so that others can look at it and see whether that editorial separation is being achieved.Let me run through some of the things that are a part of that. The mandatory tests prescribed for the objective of editorial separation include separate editorial policies. What is the basis on which the editorial framework will be arrived at? How will comment be derived? What will the process be for selecting what stories get a run and what stories do not get a run? These are all part of that process. There is a whole series of decisions that go into editorial content. It can be as simple as what you choose to cover and what you do not choose to cover. It could be what drivel from the member for Lowe you report that is totally irrelevant to the bill or whether you stick to the substance of the bill. It could be whether it is a dispassionate analysis of the facts of the story or whether it is a `muse' bordering on a creative writing piece about what Australian media might look like in 2025, when there will be these monsters controlling the media and filling our brains with horrible thoughts, puppeteers controlling the executive and the government of the day, as the member for Lowe would see it—with him forgetting that there are 150 puppets in here. That is a whole lot of strings to hang from the parliament!83DMurphy, John, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will desist from interjecting! Standing order 55 explicitly says that, when a member is speaking, they shall be heard without interjection.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Is that aircraft noise? No, it is the member for Lowe, trying to make noise as a substitute for a debate! The editorial separation objectives, as I mentioned, go to editorial policies. What about organisational charts? How does the place function, what are those decision-making streams, who is involved, who needs to be consulted and where is the point where a decision is made about what gets included in a bulletin and what does not? What about separate editorial news management, when information is coming in—when earnest members of parliament like the member for Lowe have put out a bit of the slag against a leading public servant and they fire that off—who makes the decision about whether it is newsworthy or whether it has got anything to do with the news whatsoever? What about the news compilation process? Who is engaged, who is contacted, who is consulted, who are the so-called experts? It is a bit like Gerry Griffin on 3LO—the only person who ever muses about industrial relations on 3LO is Gerry Griffin. We know what Gerry thinks, but there is a time when there are some other people that actually have some views that the public might want to hear about. What about news gathering and interpretation capability?So there is an objective framework within which this aspiration of editorial separation will be measured. You will have those applying for cross-media exemptions having to walk the talk—having to explain how they are going to deliver that editorial separation and provide for the most rich range of voices on current affairs, on matters of news, that is achievable with this ownership structure that we are canvassing here today. Once they make those undertakings and publish that information, it is available for people to have a look at. If the member for Lowe or anybody else thinks it is bogus, they can say so. They can raise their concerns, they can take that up with the ABA, because once the certificate is issued, it is not like an event. It is not like, `Gee, we've got through that cross-media ownership exemption. Now we'll go and do whatever we like.' It doesn't work like that. The idea is that those commitments that have been provided by the media outlet in pursuit of a cross-media exemption certificate need to be carried forward. They have not only got to make the case; they have got to sustain the behaviour so that we will get that editorial separation that we talk about—that we throw around in glib, sloganesque ways in here. But you never hear the Labor Party actually talking about what it means, what it looks like, how you achieve it. Think about those things, member for Lowe. How do you deliver that aspiration? At least this bill is seeking to tackle those things.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—More media owners.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—We are also hearing through the interjection that we need more of something. Well, we might need more of something, and that is where the cross-media rules come in—where you have got enterprises with an interest and a commitment to media looking to diversify their base. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with giving Australian companies or people prepared to invest in the media a chance to set up a critical mass where they can deliver equality across a range of media technologies? What is wrong with that? There is an idea that says that, if they have got a capacity to meet these editorial separation requirements, you can actually get a better outcome. What is included and what is embedded in this bill is also a chance to go back and actually require them to do more, particularly in the areas of TV and radio in regional Australia.We have an opportunity where a proprietor—one of these bogey monsters that the member for Lowe describes—that might be involved in television and radio in regional Australia wants to expand their interests and is looking to be cut some slack to be able to do that. They not only need to deliver on these questions of editorial separation; they also have to deliver on localism.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—What about in the big cities?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Lowe would do well to read the standing orders while he is sitting here and see what I might do with him if he does not stop interjecting?1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—The member for Lowe says, `Yeah, give us more localism.' What does localism look like? In this bill we seek to articulate what this localism concept looks like. It is about delivering community identity, ensuring that information is relayed in a timely fashion and fulfilling minimum levels of locally relevant news and information. So we can put a positive onus—a new burden—on media proprietors to actually lift their game. We have seen some consolidation in news gathering, news production and broadcasting in different parts around regional Australia. What can we do about that? If they are wanting to move into another market and wanting to expand their media interests, we can say, `Hang on a minute. We are actually not happy with your local content.' We have described localism. We have talked about the number of broadcasts. The minimum prescribed levels include at least five prime time news bulletins per week, containing adequate coverage of matters of local significance, broadcast of local community service announcements and the ability to broadcast emergency warnings if and when required.There is an articulation about what localism means in terms of news, current affairs and content in regional areas. That is what people have been asking for. In my city, in Melbourne, I get tired of Sydney news at 10.30 at night. It is fascinating hearing about suburbs when you do not even know where they are! Even in the cities we get some of that. But at least we have a backbone of locally relevant news. What regional Australia wants is the same thing. What we are trying to do here is deliver that through this package.While those opposite chant, `Give us more localism; give us more diversity,' we are actually describing what that looks like, prescribing requirements for proprietors who want to exercise these cross-media exemptions and delivering a better product for those regional areas. That is what matters—what we can actually do about these aspirations. Everyone can rabbit on about them. The lines are well rehearsed. Back in 1996 or 1997, even the Fairfax organisation kept drilling them into us. It was quite interesting talking to Fairfax circa 2001 and 2002—what they are looking for now—and comparing that with what the corporation had to say last time around. That is an amusing exercise for anybody who wants some fascinating insights into cross-media.Much of the debate focuses on who is going to win—who will get the big win, who will gain, who will be happy, who will be sad. What is this about? This is a bill talking about what the policy framework should look like; getting those rules in place; describing those difficult subjects about diversity, access and local content; actually putting that in the regulatory framework; and then letting the umpires at the ABA make sure that it is delivered and continues to be delivered by those people wishing to exercise the exemption provisions that are available to them.The cross-media ownership rules as they are currently outlined have been covered by other speakers. I will not add to their remarks other than to say that surely the goal is to grow those media options for people so there are new voices, new lines of thinking and new content available for people. That must be the aspiration. It has to be grounded in that goal. Then we have to talk about how you actually do it—not just rabbit on. `Gee, we want more diversity.' `Oh, I hope it comes in my Christmas stocking.' It does not work like that. You actually have to work at it. You have to work at it and put the parameters in place. That is what this bill is about, and that is what is lost on those opposite. They can tell us how things cannot be done and they can tell us why a measure is wrong, but they cannot actually put a better proposition in place. We know that there is a great range of influences at play here. The best goal for any parliament is to make sure the rules are in place to pursue those things to which we aspire. That is what this bill does.In terms of the limits, there is some overstatement, in my view, about some of the new and emerging media. It is right to say that the traditional media outlets still are the workhorse of news, information and current affairs in this country. It is easy to get a little excited about data streaming, Internet methodology, local area information delivery and subscription television—not so much subscription television, as its penetration is quite significant—but some of the newer technologies are not really cutting through what remain the workhorse of the media industries: print, television and radio. That is why that continues to be the focus of these bills. The simultaneous reforming of cross-media and foreign ownership restrictions was the basis of the coalition's election platform. We went to the electorate saying that this was what we thought was needed and that this was how we wanted to pursue those media goals that everybody so glibly talks about. The simultaneous reform will enhance diversity and competition by increasing the potential pull of media ownership while at the same time allowing greater flexibility in business structures. I do not think there is anybody in this place who thinks the foreign ownership limits have been particularly startlingly successful. The corporate gymnastics and restructuring have enabled different enterprises to find their way around those things. There is no great mystery in all that. To some extent, it really undermines the claim of the opposition that that is where the answer lies. It does not. It is not the real big win here. It is the issue about trying to get diversity and improved access through the combination of a relaxation of those foreign ownership laws along with the cross-media reforms that are part of this bill.We need to make sure there is an incentive here for Australian companies to invest. If we do not do that, if we just do the foreign ownership thing that the Labor Party is advocating, who will be the winner? Who would succeed then? It would be the foreign interests. Why hobble our own media enterprises in the face of what foreign investors may be able to do? Surely there is an argument that, in encouraging and facilitating media diversity and new voices into the Australian marketplace, it should be our voice as much as any. (Time expired)19:20:007267Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I am happy to join with other Labor members in opposing the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002. The original legislation, which was introduced by the Labor government, was described by Paul Keating as preventing one person being both the queen of screen and the prince of print. The media in Australia, as everywhere, play an important role in shaping public opinion. Public figures use the media extensively to get their views across. Governments use the media to publicise their policies—take the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on GST advertising as an example. There is no doubt that the media in all its forms strongly influence public opinion. This raises the question as to what controls, if any, we should place on media ownership and on overseas influence on our domestic media.The main effect of the current cross-media ownership rules is to prevent common ownership of newspapers, television and radio broadcasting licences that serve the same region. That makes sense. Given the existence of a national television network, this effectively means that newspaper proprietors cannot buy a television station, and vice versa.Media ownership rules are governed by three pieces of legislation: the Broadcasting Services Act 1992; the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and the Trade Practices Act 1974. There are three kinds of limits placed on media ownership: limits on ownership within a local area, national limits, and foreign ownership limits. The main reason for the current legislation is to encourage diversity in the ownership of all forms of commercial media, the daily press, free-to-air television and radio. The question to be considered in this legislation is this: would the removal or watering down of these rules be in the public interest? I do not think so. And what effect, if any, would the watering down or removal of these rules have on the diversity of choice in Australian media?One argument for the suggested change is that with new technology the existing controls are no longer necessary, as the Internet and pay TV have increased choice and diversity. I was pleased to hear the previous speaker, the member for Dunkley, say that the traditional forms of media are the more important forms and that the new technology has not had the impact that some people would suggest. In my view, the listening, reading and viewing patterns of the majority of the Australian public are set fairly solid and fit in with our work and/or social commitments. We listen to the radio in the morning as we prepare for work, we read the daily newspaper or listen to the car radio as we travel to work, and in the evenings we watch free-to-air TV news bulletins.As the Bills Digest points out, the Australian Broadcasting Authority commissioned a study that backs up my assertions. It found that 88 per cent of people use free-to-air television as a source of news, 76 per cent use radio and 76 per cent use newspapers. Only 10 per cent use pay TV and 11 per cent use the Internet. People who do use the Internet for a source of news usually use sites of established media outlets; for example, the Sydney Morning Herald's site at smh.com.au, the ABC site at abc.net.au, or ninemsn.com. All of these are sites of their respective traditional media outlets. Most of the other news sources on the Net can be accessed by using the AAP wire service. You can go to 10 different sites and get exactly the same news from exactly the same source.There is less diversity on the Net than you might imagine when it comes to news, which places more importance on the traditional forms of media. The independent site crikey.com has only 4,000 subscribers. The peeople at crikey.com are pretty pleased with themselves if they get 8,000 viewings per week. When you consider the population of Australia, that represents barely 0.01 per cent. The Daily Telegraph sells 406,000 papers per day, and the Sydney Morning Herald sells 229,000 papers per week day and 400,000 papers on a weekend, so you can see that the news media web sites are incredibly small by comparison. There is no question that the sites do add diversity of content, but they could hardly be used as an excuse to change the media ownership laws in such a way as to give established media barons more control of our media outlets.The argument that new technology has reduced people's reliance on traditional forms of media simply does not stand up to scrutiny. There is still a heavy reliance on radio, newspaper and free to air television for public news intake and entertainment. Should we throw open ownership of these media outlets to commercial interests? Would that lead to more diversity or less? Would it lead to more competition or less? In recent times we have seen that deregulation leads to less competition. Deregulation sometimes happens in conjunction with privatisation of public utilities and then, after a brief burst of increased competition, the mergers begin and competition disappears. This would happen if this legislation were to be passed. Take banking as an example. After deregulation and an initial increase in bank competition, we have seen in recent times a loss of competition as the mergers have increased. Advance Bank was taken over by St George Bank, and Colonial merged with the State Bank of New South Wales and then with the Commonwealth Bank. In every instance, branches were closed and jobs were lost.In telecommunications, competition was introduced with Optus. Then deregulation happened and there was a further increase in competition. Now we see the competition disappearing as the likes of One.Tel go to the wall and Cellular One merges with AAPT. As it has gone on and on, mergers and acquisitions have reduced competition and diversity in industry after industry. This legislation will lead to the same in the media industry.Would not new owners of an unregulated media industry be inclined to reduce, for commercial reasons, the number of media options currently available to the general public? Of course they would. They are in business to make money. We saw it with the merger of the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mirror in Sydney and the merger of the Herald and the Sun newspapers in Melbourne, resulting in loss of diversity and loss of jobs.Would an unregulated media industry be prepared to consider the requirements of regional Australia or outer metropolitan areas which may want to encourage new media outlets to increase the profile of their region? Not likely. We saw an increase in diversity with aggregation of television stations in 1989, when local regional stations broadcast local news bulletins. That diversity has all but disappeared in the 12 years since aggregation began. It didn't take long, did it? Prime axed its local news bulletins in Canberra, Newcastle and Wollongong in June last year. This was followed by Southern Cross Broadcasting axing its local news bulletins in Canberra, Townsville, Cairns, Darwin and central Australia—10 days after the federal election in November last year. All of these closures resulted in loss of diversity, loss of competition and loss of jobs.Radio is going the same way as television. To use an example in my own area, 2WS was licensed to broadcast for Western Sydney in 1979, and it did so from its Seven Hills studio in my electorate of Greenway. 2KA was a radio station based in Katoomba and serviced the Blue Mountains.0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr Bartlett—Hear, hear!MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—My friend over there would know what I am talking about. Both stations had a geographical focus and served their local communities. Recently, WS-FM, as 2WS became, packed up its Seven Hills operation and moved out of Western Sydney to share its studio with Mix FM on the North Shore. 2KA became 96.1 FM and moved to Penrith, losing its mountain focus and becoming another youth-oriented station. It too is soon moving out of Western Sydney to share studios with 2WS and Mix FM, completely ignoring its mountain constituency.0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr Bartlett—Shame!MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—I am pleased that the member for Macquarie agrees with me. We used to have a general Sydney station, Mix; a Western Sydney station, 2WS; and a Blue Mountains station, 2KA. The geographical focus is gone, in favour of an emphasis on music genre. We now have a top 40 station, Mix; a classical hits station, WS-FM; and a youth station, 96.1 FM—all operating out of the same building in Ryde with a rationalisation of positions and a loss of jobs.Debate interrupted.Adjournment726910000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.726919:30:007269Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—In recent times there has been much discussion on the issue of imposing an environmental levy on plastic shopping bags, and I would like to raise it for the first time in this House. Currently, Australia is dumping approximately three billion plastic shopping bags a year; of these, only one per cent are being recycled. The dumping of these bags results in the killing of around 100,000 birds, turtles, whales and seals each year, not to mention the visual pollution they create. The issue is of increasing concern to me and to the constituents of my electorate of Braddon, a rural and coastal electorate. I notice that on beautiful King Island calico bags are now being offered in supermarkets to overcome this serious problem. The north-west coast of Tasmania is a pristine and beautiful part of the world. We do not want the visual or environmental degradation that increasingly occurs as a direct result of using plastic shopping bags. I am sure many members on the other side would agree.In August 1999 the federal government signed off on the Australian national packaging covenant. This is a self--regulatory agreement based on product stewardship and shared product responsibility. The Australian national packaging covenant has a life span of five years; that is, it has almost another two years to run. The national packaging covenant obligations cover a variety of outcomes, from federal and state governments committing to policy and regulations, local governments committing to implementing best practice for collection and pay-as-you-throw waste charges to industry improving package design to minimise material use. Unfortunately, the Australian national packaging covenant does not specifically tackle the issue of plastic bags. The environment minister, Dr Kemp, is saying he will wait until the end of the life span of the national packaging covenant to act on the ever-increasing environmental problem of plastic bags. Unfortunately this is two years away, although I know he is well aware of the issue and is increasingly moving towards perhaps intervening more directly. I would certainly urge him to continue in that direction. Since the covenant was not created to look at the specific issue of plastic shopping bags, this could mean a two-year delay in tackling this environmental time bomb.Like most people interested in this matter, I would prefer public education and voluntary industry programs over regulation and compulsion, but in this case there is no evidence that the public education and voluntary industry programs have been working since the Australian national packaging covenant was introduced three years ago. It would be wonderful if consumers could take the initiative themselves—including me—but the recent Irish experiment indicates that it takes financial impediment or pressure on the hip-pocket nerve, such as a levy, to coax people off the plastic shopping bag habit.Ireland has implemented the Waste Management Amendment Act 2001, which has resulted in a 90 per cent reduction in the use of plastic bags. The act essentially charges a levy of around 15 Euro cents—that is something like 27 Australian cents—per bag. This levy is collected by the retailer at the point of sale. Retailers are studying the Irish success story to see if it would work here in Australia. Australian Retailers Association Chief Executive Stan Moore said in the Sunday Telegraph of 8 September: ... supermarkets would charge for plastic bags to limit their use if such a move had large public support.This environmental issue has large public support, and it is increasing; so much so that Premier Bob Carr is considering such a levy on plastic shopping bags in New South Wales, and moves are afoot in the federal parliament to tackle this issue—which I look forward to. The money the government collected from a levy—should that be the system that we use—could be reinvested directly back into environmental programs such as R&D for the manufacture of biodegradable disposable bags and other environmental projects, such as Clean Up Australia programs. The important thing to remember is that there must be alternatives available to the public. Instead of plastic bags, which would incur a levy, alternative reusable bags, which would not incur a levy, should be available at every retailer. This would allow the public to have a choice in their shopping habits while making it more cost-effective to use reusable shopping bags and, in turn, easing this environmental problem. In the Irish experiment there was initial resistance from consumers and retailers, but then the levy transformed the mind-set. I am absolutely confident we could do the same in Australia. If all of us, in all levels of government, industry and the community, put our heads together, we could solve this problem. (Time expired)727019:35:007270Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—The truth is out. Yesterday, the final chapter of the Vinson report into public education in New South Wales was released, and it is a damning indictment of the New South Wales government for its inadequate funding of public schools in that state. For too long we have had denials; for too long we have had blame shifting. This report shows clearly that the New South Wales government is hopelessly failing the public school students in New South Wales. The report showed that average funding in New South Wales is $318 million behind the average funding of other states in Australia. It is not $318 million behind best practice and it is not $318 million behind the best-achieving state; it is $318 million below the average of the five other states in this country.The New South Wales government's performance in this regard is appalling. For primary school students in New South Wales, funding is $500 less per student per year than the average for students in the rest of the country; for secondary school students, funding is an average of $400 less per student per year than the average across the country. The Vinson report concluded that simply to bring public schools in New South Wales up to the standard of public schools in other states would require the injection of an extra $218 million a year into primary schools and an extra $100 million a year into secondary schools. It is a damning indictment of the Carr government and its totally inadequate funding of public schools in New South Wales. Yet, almost before the ink on this report was dry, the Carr government and its education minister rejected the report's findings and basically said, `We're not going to do anything about it.'If you look at the detailed figures, it becomes even more clear. Average primary school funding in New South Wales is 7.9 per cent below the average for primary school funding; for secondary schools it is four per cent below average. Capital funding is even worse. Capital funding for primary schools in New South Wales is 17.3 per cent below the national average; for secondary schools it is 33 per cent below the average. That is below the appalling average of other Labor governments. The New South Wales government is not even close to keeping up with the policies of the other Labor state governments.This translates into lost dollars for local schools. Let me give you examples of three of my schools. I will start with Richmond High School, with 810 students: if the Carr government funded schools in New South Wales at the same level as the average for other schools, Richmond High School would get an extra $324,000 a year. If we look next at Faulconbridge Public School, with 355 students: if the Carr government funded Faulconbridge Public School at the same level as other states are funding public schools, it would get $177,500 extra per year. Finally, there is Bligh Park Public School, with 515 students. If the Carr government funded Bligh Park Public School at the same level as other governments are funding public schools, it would get an extra $257,500 per year. I could go on for school after school. The Carr government is badly failing students in our public schools in this state.There is no excuse. This is the biggest taxing state government. This government has had an increase of 7.4 per cent in GST revenue over the past year. This Labor government has had an increase of 4.7 per cent in financial assistance grants from the federal government. It has massive taxes, and it cannot even keep up with the average of other state governments. This year the federal government increased direct federal funding for public schools in New South Wales by 5.7 per cent. The response of the Carr government: a miserable increase of two per cent.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Two per cent?0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT—Two per cent, barely keeping up with inflation. It had a 7.4 per cent increase in GST revenue, a 4.7 increase in financial assistance grants from the federal government, a 5.7 per cent increase in direct education funding grants from the federal government, and what does the Carr government do? It funds its schools by only an extra two per cent. Funding for New South Wales public schools is $318 million below the national average. This state government is a disgrace. It is time it lifted its game. It is time it adequately funded the schools in New South Wales. (Time expired)727119:40:007271Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I was going to start by speaking about the National Maternity Action Plan this evening, but I cannot let the previous comments go unanswered. The previous speaker, the member for Macquarie, seemed to believe that a percentage increase is the only measure of whether education funding is increasing or not. If you are giving someone $10 a year and you increase it by $10, that is a 100 per cent increase. If you are giving them $100 and you pay them another $10, that is a 10 per cent increase. If the member for Macquarie is genuinely interested in public education, I would like to see him vote against his government's socioeconomic status funding model, which delivers the biggest benefits to the richest private schools at the expense of public education in this country. It is hypocrisy—the greatest hypocrisy I have heard in this place—for the member for Macquarie to pretend to be a defender of public education.I turn now to the National Maternity Action Plan, a subject that I am very pleased to speak on tonight. The National Maternity Action Plan presents a very well-argued case for delivering, within the public health care system, regular access to midwives for women who are expecting children. Women in the community have a number of very important decisions to make when they are thinking about having children. We have had some debate on maternity leave and how to deal with the financial aspects of child-bearing recently. But, until just yesterday, we had not had a debate in this place about the provision of midwifery services through the public health system.Many women choose to visit a midwife rather than an obstetrician, a GP or their local hospital in preparation for a birth because it gives continuity of care and a personal relationship with their carer that is not easy to establish in the normal health care system. The National Maternity Action Plan is based on local and overseas best practice experiences; statistics on birth outcomes, including maternal mortality; comparative costings for standard hospital maternity care and community midwifery programs; choices available to women in remote communities and to economically disadvantaged women; and outcomes for and experiences of Indigenous women.The information provided in all of these areas shows that midwifery is not just an option that women seek out because they enjoy the connection they develop with the midwife; it is also an enormous benefit to our health care system to encourage midwifery in preference to more medicalised treatment, which often results in higher intervention rates. As you know, Mr Speaker, Australia has one of the highest rates of caesarean births in the developed world. During the nineties there was an increase in the maternal death rate due to increased surgical intervention during the birthing process. That is something of enormous concern to people who are interested in this area. Of course, we still have one of the safest and best hospital systems in the world, but the increase in that sort of intervention has had some quite negative effects. The National Maternity Action Plan proposes a number of ways of dealing with that.The option of accessing midwives through the health care system is a particularly important one for women from Indigenous communities and women from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Having a trained midwife living in a community where women are otherwise not likely to have access to regular obstetric care is a great option for those women. In particular, having midwives that speak languages other than English is a very important development for women from non-English-speaking background communities. I commend the National Maternity Action plan report to the parliament and ask that members take the time to read this very impressive document.727219:45:007272Ciobo, Steven, MPMr CIOBO00AN0MoncrieffLP10—I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions with respect to the unique challenges and needs that face the city of the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast, as has recently been identified in the 2001 census, is the fastest growing city and the fastest growing region in Australia. This growth and the area's booming population have led to a number of unique challenges. Principal among these challenges is the need for an effective public transport system. Recognising this, I was a keen advocate and proponent of a Gold Coast light rail system. I have been campaigning, ever since I was a candidate for the Liberal Party, for the Commonwealth government to participate, in conjunction with the Queensland state government, in a light rail feasibility study for the Gold Coast.I was delighted some time ago when the Prime Minister announced that the Commonwealth government was willing to contribute $650,000, matching the Queensland state government's contribution, for such a feasibility study. A total pool of $1.3 million was made available for a consultant to undertake a feasibility study in regard to whether light rail would meet the future public transport needs of the Gold Coast. It was with some concern that I later learnt that the gentleman handling the feasibility study, the Queensland Minister for Transport and the Minister for Main Roads, Steve Bredhaeur, put the light rail feasibility study out for tender not for $1.3 million—the sum that the Commonwealth, in conjunction with the state government, was prepared to chip in—but for $892,000.The reason I rise this evening is to ask the Queensland transport minister, Steve Bredhaeur, what exactly is he going to do with the remaining $400,000. There is a litany of examples in which the Queensland state government seeks to short change the Gold Coast. I am concerned that this most recent example once again highlights the hypocrisy of the Queensland state Labor government, and in particular the state transport minister, Stephen Bredhaeur, and it also highlights that it is all smoke and mirrors. The Queensland State government are prepared to grandstand and say they are responsible for a $1.3 million feasibility study; they put the Gold Coast City Council logo and the Queensland state government logo on the flyer that was issued to all tenderers. They did not include the Commonwealth government logo, despite the fact that the Commonwealth government is contributing half the funds. Despite this and despite their grandstanding, when you scratch the surface they are not in the slightest bit concerned with good outcomes for the Gold Coast. It is entirely foreseeable that the Commonwealth government will chip in $650,000, as agreed, and the state government will only chip in the balance of approximately $250,000 for the feasibility study.This is a very big study that is taking place. The sum of $1.3 million was widely publicised in all the media as being available for the feasibility study. I need to highlight that I am not casting aspersions on the actual tender process itself. The company that was awarded the tender was a consortium of KPMG and PPK. I have no doubt that their bid was a valid bid. However, a number of sources have revealed to me that other bidders put in for the same tender. I understand that they were Egis Consulting and a consortium bid between PricewaterhouseCoopers and Sinclair Knight Merz. On the information that I have been made aware of, these bids were much nearer to $1.3 million and the bidders expected that the feasibility study could barely be carried out for $1.3 million. Yet the Queensland state government sought to ride roughshod over this and appoint a $1.3 million feasibility study to a bidder who put in a tender for $892,000.All Gold Coasters have the right to ask: why is the Queensland state government seeking to short-change Gold Coasters the amount of $400,000 through this feasibility study? The Queensland state government needs to stop its grandstanding; the Queensland state transport minister needs to state clearly on the record exactly why they did not necessarily go for the best bidder but for the cheapest bidder. I look forward to hearing the response from the Queensland transport minister.727319:49:007273Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I rise in the House tonight to speak briefly in regard to a study which was released last Friday at the national conference of the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia. That document was called `The profiles of debtors, 2002.' It is an interesting document detailing the profile and circumstances of people who are currently having difficulty with respect to bankruptcy and entering into debt agreements. It is a follow-on study from a document which was completed in 1997, allowing comparisons to be made across a time span of around four years.In 1997, 23,648 individuals declared bankruptcy or entered into a debt agreement; whereas in 2001-02, the figure rose to 29,059; that is nearly a 23 per cent increase in just around four years. In 2001-02, the bankruptcy figure was 25,029, 83 per cent of which were non-business related bankruptcies. Interestingly, 39 per cent of people stated that the primary cause of bankruptcy was unemployment and 21 per cent stated that it was excessive use of credit. In 1997, the figures were 29 per cent due to unemployment and 18 per cent due to excessive credit. Debt agreements, which are an alternative to bankruptcy where the debtor has unsecured debts and their assets amount to less than $64,082 and after tax income does not exceed $32,041, were created for low income debtors to avoid bankruptcy by coming to legally binding arrangements with their creditors for the settlement of debt. Debt agreements are quite a recent thing, but they have grown dramatically since 1997 when there was only a handful cases through to a situation in 2000-01 where there were 1,234 cases. Then in 2001-02 there were 3,294 cases—an increase over that 12-month period of some 267 per cent. Again, 33 per cent said unemployment was a key reason for the need for a debt agreement and 28 per cent said that excessive use of credit was the reason. This points to quite a worrying phenomenon that seems to be occurring around the question of debt levels in Australian society today. The emphasis is often on the question of household debt having increased quite dramatically from historically very low levels—and low levels internationally—to a situation where we are not much different to other parts of the Western world, in a situation where the value of housing and, therefore, mortgages are seen as being a key component with respect to debt and the actual value of people's asset bases.Tonight I would like to focus on credit cards and excessive credit being built up and how that will cause problems for people into the future. The interesting thing is that the statistics do not seem to show what a lot of people have said, and that is that young people, particularly with things like mobile phone bills and credit card debt, have got themselves into increasing levels of trouble. Certainly the formal figures do not appear to show that. The figures show that there has been a very minor increase in that level and it is still less than their percentage of the population. Certainly in the case of my kids, we try to control that because we have seen enough horror cases out there in the media about what that can do to a family. I point to the issue of total household credit versus credit card debt and what percentage that credit card debt is of total household debt. To give you an example, back around 30 June 1998—and these are RBA bulletin figures—total household credit was $265,985 million and credit card debt was $9,773 million. So credit card debt was about 3.7 per cent of household debt. The latest figures show that, at 30 June 2002, total household credit was $424,903 million and credit card debt was $21,036 million—up to five per cent of household debt. It is increasing. It is a worrying concern in terms of the way society is going, in a situation where we are expecting increasing interest rates. (Time expired)727419:55:007274Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Earlier this week the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiring into beef export quotas made recommendations which, if implemented, would see the Monbeef Abattoir in Cooma in my electorate face possible closure. We know the problem we have with US beef quotas. Last year we reached the limit of the quotas that they allow for Australian beef, and this year the minister faced the very difficult situation of deciding how the balance of meat exports could be broken up to fit within the quota, because we were going to exceed the 379,000 tonnes that the US allow. We have to keep working at the US to make sure they increase that quota.Currently we have the ludicrous situation where countries like Argentina cannot fulfil their quota because of foot-and-mouth disease but the Americans will not allow Australian abattoirs to take up some of the quota that is not used by other countries, which is just crazy. Anyway, we have to deal with that. This year the minister was faced with a very difficult situation and had to make a decision. He came up with a formula which was very fair. The abattoirs that have predominantly sold to the US took cuts in what they could send and abattoirs that have sent nothing to the US actually got quota. I guess they were looking for quota, because a lot of their markets, particularly in Japan, were going down. When you consider that companies have gone out there and established markets and then have had somebody come along and say, `These people down the road haven't put anything into America but we'll give them some quota'—which they can actually then sell because it becomes a tradeable item—I start to get worried, and I would have liked to have seen the marketplace sort it out. Anyway, I think the minister came up with a very fair system—the fairest you could possibly get under the very difficult circumstances being faced this year. The Senate rural and regional affairs committee had an inquiry into that to come up with a formula for next year and the year after, and they recommended that a global formula be used. That means that those who have sold the least beef to the US will actually end up with the most quota and those who have sold the most beef to the US will end up with the least quota. How fair is that sort of system? I know they have been under a lot of pressure from the big guys—AMH, for instance—but here we have these big guys being played off against really efficient, highly productive Australian companies like Monbeef. Monbeef's John Kilmartin and Charlie Beaumont in Cooma put in a huge investment a few years ago to convert a totally inefficient domestic abattoir into a highly efficient, highly productive export abattoir. They went out there and they got the market, and they worked hard at getting that market. I think it is un-Australian to have regulation or legislation that comes in and basically takes that away. That is what this formula, recommended by the Senate committee, would do. They recommended a global formula rather than taking into account those abattoirs that exported predominantly to the US.There was an aspect of the recommendation that said that, if you had more than 70 per cent going to the US in 2001, you would get compensation so that you could export more. Monbeef knew that there was going to be a problem with the US. These are smart people and they are out there in the marketplace. They knew last year that we were going to reach this US quota limit. So they could have just poured all of their product into the US and then, based on this formula, they would probably be okay. But, because they found some additional markets, they will actually be penalised as a result. I find that totally unfair. The committee's recommendation supposedly goes to the tribunal and then the tribunal will advise the minister. I know the minister will certainly be looking at this very closely. I call on the minister to maintain the very fair formula that he put in place for this year and to reject this Senate formula. It is the wrong formula. It rewards the conglomerates and goes against the very productive Australian abattoirs. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:007275House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices7275The following notices were given:XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony to present a bill for an act to provide for activity testing of holders of certain visas claiming special benefit under social security law comparable with the activity testing of Australian residents of workforce age, and for other purposes.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony to present a bill for an act to amend the social security law and the family assistance law, and for related purposes.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey to present a bill for an act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974, and for related purposes.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to telecommunications, and for other purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to establish the Australian Crime Commission, and for other purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend various excise laws, and for other purposes.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: Stage 1 redevelopment and facilities for the Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft, RAAF Base Williamtown, Newcastle.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin to move:That this House: (1) notes the continued occupation by the State of Israel of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in contravention of United Nations Resolution 242 passed on 22 November 1967; (2) supports the right of Israel to exist within secure borders; (3) calls on the United Nations to insert a peace keeping force into the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza and the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces; (4) calls for the recognition of the State of Palestine based on the pre 1967 borders of the West Bank and Gaza; and (5) calls on the international community to encourage and support the resolution of outstanding differences between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine based on the Oslo and Camp David Agreements.2002-09-25—————The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley) took the chair at 10.01 a.m.Bills7277R15337277Debate resumed from 19 September, on motion by Mr Andrews:That this bill be now read a second time.10:01:007277Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Industry Measures) Bill 2002 makes a number of largely minor changes to improve the efficiency of the administration of private health insurance. In August 2000 amendments to the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 enabled health funds to establish gap cover schemes. Under these schemes health funds are able to provide no-gap cover and known-gap cover without the need for specific contracts. In relation to gap cover schemes, the current bill has two stated aims: firstly, to align, where appropriate, requirements relating to gap cover schemes with those applicable to contractual methods of addressing the gap; and, secondly, to consolidate and clarify the obligations of registered health funds to provide information to the public and the department.Among the changes made by the bill to improve the operation of no-gap schemes are the following: the bill exempts the assignment of a contributor's Medicare benefit to a health fund from any duty or charge under state law; the bill gives the Department of Health and Ageing greater access to hospital purchaser-provider agreements, medical purchaser-provider agreements and practitioner agreements; and the bill further allows any person, including members of the public, access to lists of hospitals, day hospitals and medical practitioners with which a fund has contractual agreements.The bill also makes a number of other changes, such as: removing the responsibility for the registration of billing agents from the Private Health Insurance Administration Council, leaving that responsibility solely with the Health Insurance Commission; allowing funds to offer discounts for quarterly advance payments; and removing a prohibition on employers contributing directly to health expenses incurred by employees who have a certified agreement. These changes are in the nature of finetuning.While the measures in this bill will improve private health insurance, the government's recent decision to allow private health funds to automatically increase their premiums by inflation will slug families for between $50 and $100 each year. The decision to allow private health insurers to automatically increase their premiums by the CPI each year is unfair to Australian families, especially those who might have believed the Prime Minister on 29 August 1996 when he said:What I can give is an absolute guarantee that any change in future will be as a result of a decision taken at a political level in a way and in circumstances where we are satisfied that the rise is completely justified.Later the same day the Prime Minister said:... in future any increases in health insurance premiums will need to be approved by the Minister for Health personally in consultation with the Treasurer and myself.The Prime Minister has now walked away from his `absolute guarantee' that this government would approve further premium increases. There is now nothing to stop private health funds putting up their premiums by the CPI each year. The result is that consumers will pay more. Australian families, who listened to the Prime Minister and understood that the Prime Minister would keep that commitment, will pay more.Let us not forget every other taxpayer who will be funding the increases in the government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. The government's contribution to private health insurance is currently $2.3 billion per year. Another five per cent increase in premiums would cost the taxpayer around $115 million each year, or $460 million for four years. The government promised premiums would come down; but, as we know, they have gone up—one promise before the election turning into a broken promise after the election. Unfortunately, that is all too familiar.Australians with private health insurance will have to look forward to an annual automatic minimum CPI slug from their health fund. Worse, health funds will still be able to apply for an even greater increase. There have been numerous media reports recently that health funds will be asking the government for increases next year of at least five per cent. Are these increases inevitable? Will the government give us an absolute guarantee? Already this year we have seen average price increases of seven per cent across the private health insurance industry. God forbid the government further violating the Australian people with any more absolute guarantees on private health insurance.The recent behaviour of the government on this issue has already been nothing short of offensive, in my view. This decision was cynically announced on 11 September. This was a deliberate attempt by the government to mask the bad news from Australian families. I will explain what happened. At four o'clock in the afternoon on 11 September 2002, the Minister for Health and Ageing issued a media release. She said:The Federal Government will introduce measures to make private health funds more efficient and competitive.... ... ...Under the new measures, health funds would be able to make annual automatic cost-of-living adjustments at or below the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to their premiums.It is incredible that the minister still tried to pretend the announcement was good news for Australian consumers. If the changes were really going to be good for Australians and their families, why sneakily put out a media release on the decision in the late afternoon when the majority of Australians were numbed by the countless television reruns of the tragic and catastrophic events in the United States of America 12 months earlier? How cynical can the government get? Australians despise this behaviour but, unfortunately, have come to expect it from the government.A further five per cent premium increase would cost many Australian families, already under financial pressure, an extra $100 to $150 per year. When the government approved the seven per cent in average premiums earlier this year, it translated to Australians paying between $150 and $250 more each year for their cover. Individual increases for some funds were much greater: a 66 per cent to 100 per cent increase in excess payments for many Medibank Private members, with nearly three million members in total; a 36 per cent increase for some IOR Australia members, with over 100,000 members; a 32 per cent increase for some Australian Health Management members, with over 250,000 members; an 18 per cent average increase for all HBF's 800,000 members in Western Australia; and a 16 per cent increase for Medibank Private's most popular product.Rather than selling off Medibank Private, the government should make sure Australian consumers and Australian taxpayers get value for money from private health insurance. Whilst the opposition supports this bill because it streamlines the efficiency of the administration of private health insurance, the government's serial practice of slugging families by stealth must cease forthwith.10:08:007279Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Time after time my colleagues on the other side get somewhat excited about the government's commitment to private health insurance. The government's commitment has been a very strong one and a very popular one in the community. It is actually very much supported by the Australian community. I am puzzled as to why the Labor Party gets excited. When we look at Labor's track record—I lay these figures out in relation to the Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Industry Measures) Bill 2002, and you will see the connection shortly—in 1996, when the current government came to office, health fund membership was down to 33 per cent, with a total of 6,149,000 Australians in private health insurance. Now, in 2002, that has climbed massively to 44.1 per cent, a total of 8,705,000 Australians. That is an extra 2.6 million people who are covered by private health insurance. I think that is an indication of how popular private health insurance is in the Australian community.The government intends to continue its strong commitment to private health insurance and, through mechanisms such as the bill that the Main Committee is discussing today, to make things better for the consumers of private health insurance. The National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 allow health funds to pay a benefit in excess of the Medicare Benefits Schedule fee for medical services where conditions are met through contracts or other agreements. This allows health funds to provide no gap or known gap in-hospital medical services to insured patients. The proportion of in-hospital medical services for which there was no gap increased in the June 2002 quarter. This increase followed a relatively stable March 2002 quarter and a succession of increases in every quarter from June 2000 to December 2001. It should be noted that each private episode of care may include a number of medical services provided by a number of doctors. Any of us who have been in that situation will know the plethora of bills you get after some kind of episode like that.`Gap' is defined as:... the amount payable by the patient (or out-of-pocket costs) after the Medicare Benefits and Fund Benefits have been paid. There is no gap payable where there is a `No gap agreement' between the fund and the provider, or where there is no agreement but the provider charges no more than the MBS fee.In the June quarter 2002 there were 3,269,137 in-hospital medical services provided to patients, representing 78 per cent of the total, with no out-of-pocket costs. This was an increase of two percentage points from the March quarter 2002 figures of 76 per cent. The proportion of services with a known gap remained stable at four per cent over the quarter. The percentage of services with no gap varied from 72 per cent in New South Wales to 88 per cent in South Australia. Queensland fitted in right in the middle, just below the national average of 78 per cent, with a figure of 77 per cent. The average gap payment for all insured in-hospital medical services was $16.23 in the June 2002 quarter, including services where there was no gap. This figure is an increase over the March 2002 figure of $15.97, but follows four quarters in succession in which there has been a decrease in the average gap payment. The average payment for patients for services where there remained an out-of-pocket cost for the patient was $74.28 in the June 2002 quarter, compared to $67.38 in the March 2002 quarter and $73.49 in the December 2001 quarter.The changes that are proposed in this bill before the Main Committee will have no impact whatsoever on premiums and they will have no impact on the 30 per cent rebate that is currently offered to people who have private health insurance. The changes that we are going to put through are mostly housekeeping amendments, and they will ensure that the health funds give the department and members of the public access to information about contracts, which will improve the transparency of the situation. They are basically technical amendments. I am pleased to see that members of the opposition will be supporting these sensible amendments.Before I go on to the amendments, I would like to observe that in Townsville, which is my home patch and Australia's largest tropical city, we have two very fine hospitals—the Mater private hospital and the Wesley Park Haven—which provide extraordinarily good private hospital services. I pay tribute to the staff of those hospitals for their provision of services to the people of Townsville and Thuringowa.The amendments that we are considering today will, among other things—and I think everyone will understand this is a sensible thing—provide that the automatic assignment of a contributor's Medicare benefit to a health fund under an approved gap cover scheme is not liable for any state or territory duty or charge. I think all of us in the community are mindful about this element of tax on a charge or whatever, and these amendments make sure that it does not happen. If a contributor—you or I—wants to ask a health fund to provide information to a medical practitioner which will enable or assist the medical practitioner to comply with the requirement to provide written information to the patient on the expected costs of treatment covered by a gap cover scheme, another amendment will require that health fund to provide the information if requested. I think that is sensible too. A further amendment requires a health fund to comply with any request from the Health Insurance Commission for access to documents that relate to the payment of Medicare benefits to the fund under a gap cover scheme. This legislation will extend to the parties who are able to access listed funds with contracted hospitals, and to members of the public, the ability to access these lists on request. So a member of the public will be able to see the funds' lists of contracted hospitals. Perhaps that will enable them to have better choice. Finally, there is a sensible amendment in relation to the discounting of premiums. I am not sure why we must make any arrangements on this, but there must be some reason for it. I would have thought we would allow the market to decide what it is going to do in relation to the discounting of premiums. Currently discounts can only be offered to customers who have private health insurance if they pay six months in advance and if it is done through payroll deductions or it is through a bank debit system and so on. This legislation will amend that and allow that to occur at three-monthly intervals if so desired. I think that the change will have a positive effect on consumers and the industry. There are administrative savings—as the member for Lowe noted—in these arrangements. It is eminently sensible that we put these amendments into legislation through this bill. I recognise the work that the Minister for Health and Ageing and her staff have done. Health is a very difficult portfolio but, to the minister's credit, she responds to those very difficult issues and, where practical issues are concerned, she responds to those as well. I thank her and her staff for bringing this legislation to the parliament today. 10:18:007280Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Industry Measures) Bill 2002 amends the National Health Act 1953 to remove differences between the provisions relating to contractual gap cover arrangements introduced in 1995 and gap cover schemes introduced in 2000. Gap payments have long been an issue concerning health insurance funds, governments and consumers. There are two models under which health insurance funds can cover insurance for gap payments: contractual gap agreements and gap cover schemes. There are currently discrepancies between these. The bill also aims to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 to transfer the responsibility for approving and monitoring billing agents from the Private Health Insurance Administration Council to the Health Insurance Commission. In relation to gap cover schemes, the current bill has two stated aims: to align, where appropriate, requirements relating to gap cover schemes with those applicable to contractual methods of addressing the gap; and to consolidate and clarify the obligations of registered health funds to provide information to the public and the department. The bill seeks to achieve these aims by introducing the following changes: (1), a health fund that pays benefits to a doctor under an improved gap cover scheme and assignment of a contributor's Medicare benefits to a health fund under an approved gap cover scheme will not be liable to any duty or charge under any state or territory law or any Commonwealth law that applies only to a territory; (2), health funds will be required to comply with a contributor's request to provide information to a medical practitioner to assist the practitioner in informing the patient of the expected cost of treatment covered by a gap cover scheme; (3), health funds will be required to comply with any request by the HIC for access to documents relating to the payments of Medicare benefits to the fund under a gap cover scheme; (4), any person, including members of the public, will be able to access, on request, fund lists of hospitals, day hospitals and medical practitioners with which a fund has contractual agreements; (5), the Department of Health and Ageing will be able to access copies of registered organisations' hospital purchaser provider agreements, medical purchaser provider agreements and practitioner agreements attached to its HPPAs; and, (6), responsibility for approval of billing agents will be transferred from the Private Health Administration Council to the HIC.The bill also introduces the following changes. The Minister for Health and Ageing will be able to determine that a scheme pursuant to a certified agreement or an enterprise agreement is not an employee health benefits scheme and therefore not a health insurance business under the National Health Act 1953. Health funds will be able to offer discounts to contributors where they pay three months or more in advance.As has been mentioned by earlier speakers, this is largely housekeeping legislation which has the support of the opposition. But as it relates to matters with respect to private health insurance, it allows me to make some comments about that area and the issues in that area as that is relevant to the bill. Private health insurance and, in particular, private health insurance premiums have been a matter of quite some controversy in recent years. We have seen premiums growing to astronomical levels and there has been grave uncertainty in the community about what is happening with private health insurance. The current shadow minister for health and ageing, Stephen Smith, has had a number of comments to make on this broad issue of private health insurance, particularly around the question of premiums and cover. I would like to quote some comments he has made on that issue as they relate to this bill.The Prime Minister once felt so strongly that increases in private health insurance premiums should require Government approval that he repeated his promise at least seven times within the space of a few hours.On 29 August 1996, at an address to the Queensland Division of the Liberal Party at the Sheraton Hotel in Brisbane and at a subsequent doorstop interview, he said:1. “ ... in future, any increases in health insurance premiums will need to be approved by the Minister for Health personally in consultation with the Treasurer and myself.”2. “ ... when the Government proposes to provide a subsidy of taxpayers' money to the tune of half a billion dollars a year, and that will be the cost of the health insurance rebates, it is entitled to be absolutely satisfied itself that the benefit of that subsidy is not being in any way exploited and the value of that subsidy, in terms of its benefits to the consumer is not going to be lost.”3. “I will put in place arrangements that will ensure that in future no rise occurs without the express approval of the Government and that any rise in future is completely justified.”4. “What I can give is an absolute guarantee that any change in future will be as a result of a decision taken at political level in a way and in circumstances where we are satisfied that the rise is completely justified.”5. “ ... Any increase from now on will have to be approved at a political level and it will only be if we are completely satisfied that that increase is justified.”6. “All I can honestly guarantee to you and promise you is that we will put in place arrangements that ensure that any future increases will be as a result of a political decision and only if those in charge of the decision are completely satisfied, completely satisfied, that the increase is justified.'7. “But I think in future, particularly where you have a circumstance that the Government is providing on behalf of the taxpayer a subsidy of half a billion dollars, the political arm of that Government is entitled to have a say in whether health insurance premiums should go up or not.'Following from that, again quoting from before the election, Prime Minister Howard and his government said that there would be `downward pressure' on premiums and that private health insurance would be `more affordable and attractive' to consumers. That was in the Putting Australia's interests first document by the Liberal Party of Australia. He also said that the Howard government's policies would `lead to reduced premiums', which is in the Heading in the right direction document, again by the Liberal Party of Australia. Already this year, we have seen average price increases of seven per cent across the private health insurance industry—with speculation this week that new premium rises of five per cent will be inevitable next year.Quite aside from the broken promises, it makes no sense for the government to walk away from approving premium increases when taxpayers are responsible for funding 30 per cent of each increase through the private health insurance rebate. Taxpayers now contribute $2.3 billion each year to subsidise private health insurance. Even the current annual CPI increase of 2.8 per cent would cost taxpayers an extra $260 million over four years for the cost of the rebate.In the circumstances, I feel that there is a range of other issues in the health portfolio that I could probably talk about at this stage, given the current state of the House. Honourable member—That would be a great relief.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—That would probably provide everyone with a great deal of relief. I will refer to some issues which relate in a wider sense to private health industry matters. They are matters which relate to the overall or general costing of health and which, in that respect, are still—just—relevant to the bill. The circumstances we have seen recently around the question of pharmaceutical costs and the impact that that has on the cost of the health system overall—and, in that respect, the cost of private health insurance—comes to mind. This is an issue which successive governments have faced problems with over the years, as the growing cost of medicines has increased exponentially. This is not only an Australian issue; it is an international issue. It is something that is facing health economists and health systems throughout the world, and it is something which Australia has actually been able to, across government, handle better than most. However, we have seen a situation in recent years where costs have gone through the roof. We have now seen a situation where this government has taken action through the budget to take on this issue in a manner which I think is unfair, unjust and unreasonable. Certainly one would hope, with the current blocking by our side of the current budget measures, that this government will see some reason in the need to take a more sane and sensible approach to spending on pharmaceuticals and will adopt a manner whereby, rather than cut and then review, they review first. What has happened since the election is not what was said, before the election, would happen. The previous health minister was saying that there was not a problem when clearly there was. We said that there was, we were very clear about the fact that there was and we believed that action needed to be taken; but what this government has done in this area is quite unfair. Certainly I hope they review what they have done. It relates to private health insurance in so many ways because it relates to the overall cost of the system. I am certainly hoping something can be done about that. I commend this bill to the House.10:29:007283McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am pleased to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Industry Measures) Bill 2002. This bill primarily deals with the obligations of registered health funds to provide information to the public and to the department about the gap. Essentially, it deals with accountability issues in the private health sector. Accountability seems to be quite a novel concept for this government, especially in the area of health. In August, the Prime Minister evaded questions from my colleague the shadow minister for health, the member for Perth. This evasion was not just a one-off. The previous day, my colleague had also asked the Prime Minister a similar question about his dishonouring of his `absolute guarantee' and `honest guarantee' to the Australian people on private health insurance. I am referring to the Prime Minister's comments on 29 August 1996, when he stated:What I can give is an absolute guarantee that any change in future will be as a result of a decision taken at a political level in a way and in circumstances where we are satisfied that the rise is completely justified.The Prime Minister, in response to the member for Perth's question, stated that the decision of the government to allow automatic premium price increases without the need for government approval was not inconsistent with his absolute guarantee that future premium increases would require government approval.What does this mean to the people of Stirling who have private health insurance? Last week, in a speech on structured settlements, I briefly outlined the complete policy failure of this government in health. The most galling thing about this mismanagement is the waste of resources that could have been redirected into the public health system. I refer, of course, to the actions of this government in propping up the private health insurance industry using taxpayers' money. The first part of this policy failure was the 30 per cent rebate. As I mentioned, I received thousands of postcards from constituents asking Labor to support the 30 per cent rebate. On the surface, the 30 per cent rebate idea seemed positive—a rebate to encourage people to take up private health insurance and thus relieve pressure on our overburdened public hospital system. However, as Labor predicted, the 30 per cent rebate fell flat on its face. Any incentive that the rebate would provide for people to take up private insurance was quickly gobbled up by a greedy profit grab by the health insurance funds. When we have a government that spouts rhetoric on free market economics, I find it ironic that we are in fact propping up an inefficient industry.After the failure of the 30 per cent rebate to significantly increase participation rates, the government decided that it would change its policy from the carrot to the stick. The next policy step was the introduction of lifetime health cover. This scheme encouraged people to join private health funds before a certain date or be faced with a loading on top of their premiums. It gave people until the age of 30 to join up or face a financial penalty. This policy did increase participation rates. In my electorate of Stirling, private health insurance participation rates soared to over 50 per cent for the first time in years. Before the last election, I received statistics from the peak body representing private insurance, and a veiled threat that I had better support policies that favoured private health insurance as the majority of my constituents now had private health insurance. This is the reason I am talking on this bill, which deals with some minor alterations to the National Health Act 1953 to remove unintended differences between the provisions relating to contractual gap cover arrangements introduced in 1995 and the gap cover schemes which were introduced in August 2000.As I have stated before in this debate, the majority of my constituents now have private health insurance. The only question is: how long will this number stay in the majority? Why will participation rates start to drop? The answer to this is quite simple: after being bullied into taking private health insurance, many families in my electorate are simply not going to be able to afford to continue with private health insurance. The government-approved increases earlier this year hit Western Australians a lot harder than eastern states residents. Some private health funds in Western Australia increased their premiums by over 15 per cent. This is a huge increase to the average family budget.To top this off, the Howard government released on 11 September this year a decision that will see private health insurance premiums automatically increase on an annual basis in accordance with the CPI. This will mean for next year that Stirling families can expect their private health insurance to increase between $50 and $100 per family. This is a flagrant breach of the promise made by the Prime Minister prior to the last election—a promise that supposedly gave an absolute guarantee that decisions of this nature would be made by his government, not by bureaucrats or regulators, or be done automatically.Why the sudden change of heart? The backlash that members opposite received after the government approved the massive increases earlier this year had them running scared. The decision to make automatic increases without government approval in reality is just a cynical measure to allow the government to claim that they had no say in the increase—a simple blame game. What will be the effect of further increases in private health insurance premiums? The Financial Review of Friday, 13 September 2002 contained an article by Morgan Mellish and Lisa Allen which stated in its opening paragraph:Looming rises in private health insurance premiums have prompted predictions that fund members may abandon the industry, putting extra pressure on the public system.But Western Australian state health minister, Bob Kucera, went further in the West Australian newspaper on the same day. The article stated:Mr Kucera said the Howard Government was hell-bent on supporting the private health industry even though there was a rapid decline in bulkbilling, a serious shortage of the GPs and a big drop in the availability of after-hours GP services. “What is more disturbing for the State Government is that the increase in uptake for private health insurance has not eased pressure on our public hospital emergency departments,” he said.Mr Kucera certainly picked up on the problem that the Howard government's policy failures will create: more pressure on the public health system. The policy failure of the 30 per cent rebate meant that billions of dollars that could have been channelled into the public health system to relieve a crisis was gobbled up by an inefficient industry sector. The Howard government is always talking about industry reform in other sectors. A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 10.35 a.m. to 10.54 a.m.83CMcFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE—Before the suspension, I was saying that the Howard government is always talking about industry reform in other sectors. But, for some reason, it is avoiding the health insurance sector. There is only one true national private health insurer—Medibank Private. The rest of the funds are essentially state based. There are also a large number of smaller funds. Both the member for Perth and industry analysts have identified that the sector is in need of serious reform. My colleague the member for Perth has stated in the media on numerous occasions that there needs to be rationalisation of the private health industry. Without this rationalisation occurring, the taxpayer is pumping money into a worthless cause and the health consumer is being ripped off.Labor recognise that private health insurance is a reality. People choose to participate in private health insurance for a variety of reasons. What riles us is the fact that this government, a government that has reformed many industries and declined to help out other industries, is effectively propping up an inefficient sector. Because the sector is inefficient and the services offered are often less than adequate, we have the ridiculous situation where a population that has experienced a 13 per cent increase in private health insurance participation rates over two years is putting more pressure on our public health system. The decrease in the number of doctors who are bulk-billing is forcing people to go to our hospital emergency wards to receive free treatment. There are instances of people with private health insurance going into public hospitals for treatment as public patients because they do not want to pay the gap.This bill is about gap reporting. The government needs to do more than just tinker around the edges of the gap issue; it needs to develop policies that address the fundamental problems in the Australian health system that are increasing costs to the health consumer. It is the consumer who matters. We are all health consumers at some stage in our lives. Health affects us all. What I want to say to the people who sent me the 30 per cent rebate campaign card is that this government took you for a ride. It promised lower premiums and better services as a result of the rebate. Have you received either of these promises? Have the private health insurers given you cheaper premiums and wider cover? I think the answer to both of these questions is no.The people with private health insurance have been hit with a double whammy: they are contributing their taxes to fund the rebate and they are forking out more in premiums. Put simply, they are paying more. This increased cost will force them out of schemes in the near future. If prices drop due to some miraculous industry reform, they will be penalised for leaving by this government's Lifetime Health Cover policy. All they are faced with are increased costs if they stay in and increased costs, through penalties, if they leave and return in the future. If they leave then they will utilise the public health system, a system that is starved of funds. The future of health in this country is not a pretty picture.What is needed is a two-pronged approach. Firstly, there should be an approach that rationalises the private health industry to reduce administration costs, a rationalisation that would see less money spent on advertising and more spent on giving the private health consumer value for their money. Without this rationalisation, the industry will continue to operate inefficiently, with the consumer the loser. The second part of a sensible approach would be to look at the amount of taxpayers' money that is currently pumped into private health insurance and to redirect some of this money into a public health system in crisis.We cannot continue to support an approach by this government that leaves the people in both systems as losers. Families in Stirling need to know that they have the safety net of a vibrant public health system if they cannot afford private health insurance. Those families who choose to take up private health insurance need to know they are getting value for money. Only the Labor Party will deliver on this issue.10:58:007286George, Jennie, MPMs GEORGEJH5ThrosbyALP00—The issue of health policy is a vital one affecting constituents regardless of whether they are represented by a Labor or a Liberal representative in this parliament, so I think much of what I am going to say also confronts members on the opposite side of the House in their electorates. I want to begin by drawing attention to health policy statements that were made by the Prime Minister before the election and the reality of what happened after the election, and to put it in the context of yet another broken promise and yet another area where, in power, the government has differentiated between so-called core and non-core promises. I remember very clearly in the lead-up to the last federal election that the Prime Minister and his party were trumpeting the following claims: under a Howard government, private health insurance would become more affordable; and private health insurance would be more attractive across the board because it would `ensure that premiums were driven down', thereby making it easier for all families to take up the option of coverage under the private health system.I concede that there are many Australians who make the choice to have private health coverage—among them some very low income earners such as pensioners and self-funded retirees. That happens in my electorate as well. I think the reason they do that is the increasing apprehension about access to quality public health, particularly in the public hospital system. For a lot of these very low income earners, pensioners and self-funded retirees, it is like an insurance policy against the eventuality of needing urgent care that is not there because of the deliberate running down of provisions in the public health system.People in my electorate weighed up all the policies and actually believed that John Howard meant what he said. But what did we see? Far from premiums being driven down, it was not too long before a range of private health insurance bodies were making ambit claims about the nature of the increases they wanted in their premiums. This happened in the electorate of Throsby. Many constituents contacted me about the outrageous increases that were being foisted upon them. The Labor Party and the shadow minister at the time clearly enumerated the range of increases facing working families, pensioners and low-income earners, particularly in my electorate. Suffice to say, the nonsense about the promise of driving premiums down was just rhetoric. In reality, if you take Medibank Private, the most popular private insurer, as an example, there was a nine per cent increase on average and up to a 16 per cent increase for its most popular product. I could go on and list the range of increases that faced people in Throsby, but I think that example is enough to show that it was one thing before the election and another after the election.My electorate comprises a lot of struggling families at the lower end of the income scale. When, despite your promise, they are contending with a slug of $150 to $200 extra a year, naturally they ring you. So I did a bit of investigation. Of course this was happening at the same time as the profits of the private health insurance companies, in the previous financial year, doubled to $800 million and many of them were accumulating large reserves. You have to say that there has been a deliberate misleading of the public with regard to this government's health policies. Having dealt with that broken promise, let me recall that at the same time that these promises were being made the Prime Minister said, amongst other things in a similar vein—and I think the exact date quoted by the shadow minister was 29 August 1996—when addressing the Queensland division of the Liberal Party:What I can give is an absolute guarantee that any change in future—that is, any change in costs of private health insurance—will be as a result of a decision taken at a political level in a way and in circumstances where we are satisfied that the rise is completely justified.In other words, before the election we were told that premiums would come down, private health insurance would be more affordable and any increases would have to be justified on a political basis. Well, lo and behold, on 11 September this year, the anniversary of tragic international and global circumstances, the announcement was made—I cannot think of anything more sneaky than an announcement being made at 4 p.m. on 11 September 2002—that that promise before the election would no longer have any weight and that private health funds were now free to increase their premiums in accordance with adjustments to the CPI. What does that mean? It means for the families in Throsby an extra $150 to $200 slug, on average, from last year. If you take the current CPI of 2.8 per cent and the statements of the private health insurance industry of a five per cent increase, that will mean another $50 to $100 slug next year. I think the electorate deserves to be told the truth by politicians and particularly by the leader of the nation.Now we are facing the fact that funds will no longer require political approval; they can just go along and automatically increase by the CPI. From the economic analyses of late—and in the uncertain times in which we live—you can be assured that the CPI is not going to remain at 2.8 per cent. The point I am making is that this has a profound impact on ordinary people. These are ordinary people who actually go to cast their vote believing that what they are being told is what is going to happen in reality. This government, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing in particular, stand absolutely condemned for their betrayal of their pre-election commitments.What I want to argue as well is that we need to look at what is actually occurring. I did an analysis in the electorate of Throsby. Roughly one-third of the families in Throsby are in private health insurance and two-thirds are not. So within my own electorate, and within the broader Australian community, I think we are looking at a cross-subsidisation where those who are not in private health insurance are, in fact, cross-subsidising those who are in it. As we know, the current federal outlay is somewhere in the order of $2.3 billion per year for the 30 per cent rebate. So it is $2.3 billion today, and the minimum projected increases that I have talked about will add another $250 million over the next four years. I think intelligent people are rightly asking, first of all: are the people who are covered by private health insurance getting value for money, particularly in terms of the problems with the gap? I will come to one of my constituents as a classic case study later. Secondly, are Australian taxpayers getting value for their money? Thirdly, is this actually good public policy? Is this a good way for the taxpayers' contribution of $2.3 billion—and $2.5 billion not too far down the track—to be spent?From what I can see, the 30 per cent rebate is handed over willy-nilly, without any strings attached, without any tying into health outcomes and, certainly and absolutely, with no pressure on cost constraints by the private health funds. As I said, two-thirds of my constituents in the electorate of Throsby are not in private health insurance. A lot of them are people on very low incomes. Almost 60 per cent of my constituents in Throsby rely on some form of government payment, so we are ranked ninth on the socioeconomic index of disadvantage. I want to draw attention to an advertisement that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph —I am going to bring this to the attention of my constituents—and ask: is it fair that they are cross-subsidising messages like this? The advertisement shows a lady reclining while having a massage, and the heading says, `Who paid for your last massage? ... and natural medicines, vitamins, sunglasses ...'? The advertisement reads:At Grand United our aim is to help you stay well, not just cover the costs if you have to go to hospital.Our UltraCare Health Cover makes it easy for you to look after yourself naturally. You get generous rebates on the widest range of natural therapies, herbal supplements and lifestyle choices. Plus all the usuals like dental, optical, physiotherapy and chiropractic.Combine UltraCare with any Grand United Hospital Option for total peace of mind. All Grand United Hospital Options come with Access Gap cover at no extra cost.The advertisement continues:Celebrate Natural Health MonthWin a natural health retreat weekend for two!Join, or upgrade your Grand United LifeCare Cover, during September to win a rejuvenating weekend for two at the Crystal Lodge Blue Mountains Retreat NSW including therapeutic massage, deluxe facial and aroma bath.Quite frankly, when I have constituents who have been waiting four years to get dentures and constituents who are paying $100, after the Medicare rebate, to see a specialist, and when I have families who are very fearful of the extra cost of their prescriptions if the government has its way, I begin to wonder where the justice is in this. Where is the justice for the two-thirds of people in the electorate of Throsby who do not have private health insurance and who have to cope with that kind of self-indulgent lifestyle—a lifestyle that is beyond the reach of nearly everyone in my electorate? I am beginning to think that we need in this country a proper debate about the benefits of the public policy position involved in this and an immediate crackdown on private health cover that provides lifestyle choices and products. This is all happening at a time when people are struggling to get access to basic services.I know this bill specifically talks about the problems associated with the gap, so I contend that, first of all, there should not be cross-subsidisation by the poor for those who can afford the spas, the facials and the wonderful retreats at the Blue Mountains. But what about those who scrape together the cost of coverage by private health insurance? Are they getting value for their money? Let me read a classic case study. I think my constituent says it better than I could. My constituent says:I do not know who to turn to, who I should be speaking with, or if I'm going to get anywhere voicing my opinion, but I certainly need to express how frustrated and disappointed I am with the Australian government.I am certainly not venting my frustrations at you personally, but I am hoping you may be able to enlighten me as to how the whole government system works!!I would like to know why a middle class, hardworking couple, who pay their taxes and join the private health insurance, end up in a worse situation than the people who live off the government!!My husband and I work, to provide a comfortable lifestyle for ourselves and our children, we work hard, pay taxes and recently joined the “all important private health insurance”. I expect that for this, the government provides me with a good public health system, one that is accessible to all of my family, and a great education system, one that enriches and broadens my children's knowledge.I have two daughters—I have deleted their names and other details—one is 16yrs and the other is 11yrs.The 16-year-old has been quite ill this year, with a condition called “Quinsy”.It continues:Eight weeks ago ... had an abscess cut out of her throat in the surgeons' room, 6 weeks later she was admitted to Wollongong and Bulli Hospitals as the condition had worsened again, they were able to syringe the infection, enough for her to breath, eat and talk properly.Next week ... is supposed to be operated on at Shellharbour Private Hospital to have her infected tonsils removed.... has been on antibiotics for the past 3 and a half months, to keep the infection under control.I have been advised by the specialist that I will be out of pocket for his fee, a total of $250.00, because he obviously charges more than can be covered.I have to pay the excess of $200.00 to the hospital at admission and I will also be up for the anaesthetist costs, which I am not sure of the moment.I was advised today by my health fund NIB that Shellharbour Private Hospital is not a “contracted hospital” and that I will more than likely be out of pocket for accommodation and theatre fees!!!I have 100% hospital cover, my own doctor, private hospital, accommodation and theatre fees included, why should I be out of pocket at all?... ... ...I am extremely disappointed in the all Australian way of life. It appears to me that the rich get richer, the poor get help and the middle class families just keep banging their heads against brick walls and pay for the governments unfairness.There is a happy ending to the story. Following representations from my office, the health fund finally agreed to cover at least the full cost of the operation. But where is the justice? There is no justice for the poor, who are subsidising indulgent lifestyle options and products. There is no justice for those who manage to scrape together the money for private insurance so that they are covered. The case that I read out involving one of my constituents is not atypical.It is high time the minister and the government had a serious look at what is going on in the private health sector. There has to be greater accountability by the private health funds for outcomes. There has to be greater pressure on the government to rein in costs. The government should reverse its decision of 11 September to open the door to automatic CPI adjustments at a time when the inflation rate is likely to increase without any political justification having to be provided.This government has failed the Australian people. It has broken its promises that were obviously taken sincerely. The example of my constituent shows that, even when they struggle and work hard to get covered, they then face a situation whereby private health funds that are not able to reach agreements with contracted hospitals can set their own rules. It is an indictment of the government's mishandling of the health portfolio. The government owes it to the Australian people to provide explanations as to why its promises are broken and why the poor, the pensioners and those at the lower income end of the scale are subsidising these indulgent lifestyles at the taxpayers' expense. The time has come for a serious and whole reappraisal of the funding of private health insurers and of public policy in this vital area affecting all Australian citizens.11:16:007289Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Since the election of the Howard government in 1996, the reform of the nation's health system has been high on its agenda. The Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Industry Measures) Bill 2002 seeks to build on earlier reforms initiated by the government to provide consumers with insurance cover for gap payments. Members from the opposition have stated that more money should be going to the public health system rather than to so-called cross-subsidisation of private health insurance funds and extravagant lifestyles. However, in the year 2000-01, I note that private hospital admissions rose nationally by 12 per cent, which represents a massive 245,129 hospital admissions. Without the growth in the number of people who are now privately insured, many if not most of these patients would have been seeking admission to a public hospital. The added stress and strain this would impose on the public system would not have been sustainable.I would like to move on to discuss more specifically the Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Industry Measures) Bill. The difference between what a doctor or a hospital charges for health services and the amount covered by the combined Medicare benefit and private health insurance benefit is known as the gap. Consumers have long resented gap payments. Prior to 1995, the legislation did not allow private health insurance companies to offer coverage over and above the established Medicare Benefits Schedule fee. Medicare covered 75 per cent of the schedule fee, and private health funds could cover only the remaining 25 per cent. Following subsequent legislative changes, the private funds were able to make payments for medical services above the schedule fee but only when there was an agreement in place between the fund and the doctor or the hospital.In 1993, the then Labor government's health minister, Graham Richardson, warned the nation that, if the percentage of Australians with private health coverage were to drop below 40 per cent, the entire health system would be in danger of collapse. No doubt this was the reason for the legislative changes two years later, but by then it was a case of too little too late. In 1983, nearly 65 per cent of Australians were covered by private health insurance. By March 1996, when Labor finally left office, this proportion had plummeted to below 34 per cent.The decline in private health insurance coverage placed unsustainable pressure on the public system. It was estimated that, unless some urgent action was taken to reverse the trend away from private health insurance, we faced the prospect of having to build two large hospitals each year solely to cope with the increase in public demand. With the election of the Howard government, the disaster facing our health system was averted. The introduction of Lifetime Health Cover and the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance saw the trend reversed as Australians began to take up the option of private insurance once again. Overseas experience should warn us about the problems inherent in allowing too much reliance on either the public or the private systems. Australia has the best health system in the world because we have been able to achieve a fair balance between the public and the private.The issue of the gap remained a concern, however, so in 2000 the Howard government amended the National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act to allow for the establishment of gap cover schemes. These reforms enabled private health funds to provide no-gap cover, where the patient does not have to make any payments at all, and known gap cover, where the patient is told how much he or she will have to pay before treatment starts. This removed a major disincentive for people to take out private cover. An anomaly exists with the present arrangements whereby the new gap cover schemes are treated differently from the contractual gap agreements established in 1995. This bill seeks to remove that anomaly by providing that transactions under the new gap cover schemes will not be subject to any government duties or charges, just as contractual gap agreements are exempt. It also introduces a requirement for health funds, at the request of the patient, to provide information to their doctor. This will enable them to comply with the legislative requirement to provide the patient with written information on the expected costs of treatment. Failure by the parliament to approve this bill would prove costly to consumers. Additional charges would have to be levied, making the new gap cover schemes more expensive than the contractual agreements. Rejection of this bill would also disadvantage patients, as funds would not be required to assist doctors in providing them with the information on the cost of treatment before it begins.Another problem which currently exists is the absence of information on which hospitals, day hospital facilities and doctors have no-gap contractual agreements with health funds. For consumers wishing to find this information, it is currently quite difficult. The bill addresses their concerns by requiring private health insurance funds to make the details of doctors or hospitals who are participating in gap cover schemes accessible to any member of the fund or the general public. Finally, this bill will also allow health funds to offer discounts to members where they pay three months or more in advance.I have been fascinated by recent media performances predicting the end of bulk-billing. For the record, last year the rate of bulk-billing in Australia was higher than it was during the last year of the Keating government. Over 70 per cent of all services provided to patients by their doctors were bulk-billed. Three out of every four visits to the family doctor are being bulk-billed, with no expense to the patient. For Australians 65 years and over, the bulk-billing rate is 82.3 per cent, which is equivalent to eight out of every 10 services being bulk-billed. Since 1999, the Medicare rebate which is paid to doctors for a standard consultation has risen by more than 14 per cent, and for longer consultations it has risen by more than 20 per cent. I have had calls to my electorate office from elderly pensioners who have heard the irresponsible claims that bulk-billing will soon cease. It is absolutely irresponsible for anyone to be frightening vulnerable people in this manner, particularly as these claims are not consistent with the facts.Without the introduction of Lifetime Health Cover, the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate and the no-gap schemes, our public hospitals would today be facing a crisis of unprecedented proportions. The latest figures on hospital admissions, released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, demonstrate the success of the government's policies. As I said at the beginning of my speech—and I think it is worth repeating here—in 2000-01, private hospital admissions rose nationally by 12 per cent, which represents a massive 245,129 hospital admissions. Without the growth in the number of people who are now privately insured, many—if not most—of these patients would have been seeking admission to a public hospital. As I said earlier, the added stress and strain this would have imposed on the public system would not have been sustainable. The measures contained in this bill will continue to provide Australians with a viable private health insurance option so that when they need medical care and attention it will be available and affordable. I commend the bill to the House.11:25:007291Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Later in my speech I will make some comments on bulk-billing. That is something I had not intended to do when speaking on this piece of legislation, but I need to put on record the facts and figures that relate to my area—facts and figures that have been researched and are accurate, not figures that have been pulled out of the air with obviously no validity whatsoever. I will discuss that a little later. I will give a very detailed explanation of bulk-billing within my electorate, which across the board, including veterans, stands at a bit over 60 per cent—hardly the figure that the previous speaker was discussing.The Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Industry Measures) Bill 2002 amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973. The amendments are basically technical ones that we on this side of the House do not have any problems with. Overall, this should make the whole system work a little better, so there is no problem there. The legislation seeks to remove unintended differences between contractual gap cover arrangements which were introduced in 1995 and gap cover schemes, as well as to transfer the oversight of this to the Health Insurance Commission. The gap refers to the difference between the fee that doctors charge for services provided in a hospital and the combined Medicare and health insurance benefits for those services.I have been contacted in my office on a number of occasions about the problem with the gap. It has caused hardship for a number of people when they have had a stay in hospital. They have found that there is quite a difference between the money they get back from the health insurance fund and the cost of the services they received from their doctor. I think it is really important that governments do address this issue and that there are schemes in place that deal with this. One of the issues contributing at the moment to an increase in the size of the gap is the problem with medical indemnity. A number of specialists within my area have charged their patients a $200 gap fee up front to cover that insurance. That is something that I do not think is acceptable and that I have forwarded on to the Minister for Health and Ageing. I hope it is something that she will address.I would like to refer to a health survey that I have been conducting within my electorate. It has been sent to everyone in the electorate. I must say, it is early days at this stage; I have received just under 1,000 responses. I asked people in the Shortland electorate to rate nine different questions from one to nine, in order of importance. The questions related to having a doctor who bulk-bills; being able to see a doctor locally when sick, which is a very big issue in the Central Coast part of my electorate; retaining Medicare; listing medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to make them more affordable; increasing the costs of prescriptions; having a Commonwealth dental health scheme; having access to medical specialists in your area; and having affordable private health insurance. The last question I asked was about having no gap payment for surgery or a stay in a private hospital.It is really interesting that only two per cent of those who have responded to the survey to date said that the no-gap payment for surgery was the most important issue. I thought I would expand it out to look at the people who listed it in their top three in order of importance. Even in doing that, only 14 per cent put that in their top three. That compared with the 33 per cent of the people who said that having a doctor who bulk-bills was their No. 1 issue, 19 per cent who put that as their No. 2 issue—which takes it up to 52 per cent—and nine per cent who put that as their No. 3 issue. So that is 61 per cent, as opposed to 14 per cent. There is quite a disparity there in the way people view the importance of the gap payment. You can link that to another question, on having affordable private health insurance, which only four per cent put as their first choice. There was strong support for retaining Medicare—over 60 per cent of people put that in their top three. To make a valid comparison, 21 per cent of people put affordable private health insurance in their top three.I really try to listen to the people of Shortland, and the survey I sent out was scientifically valid. It was not a survey that was designed to elicit a special response from people. It was designed to obtain a response that was free of manipulation, and the wording was in no way emotive. So it seems to me that if I am listening to the people of Shortland, I would have to say that having a doctor who bulk-bills, retaining Medicare and being able to see a doctor when they are sick—something I indicated earlier is a real problem in the Central Coast part of the Shortland electorate—are the top three issues. Two of the least important are having affordable private health insurance and not having to pay a gap when they stay in a private hospital. This is important information, not only for me, not only for us in the opposition. I believe it is something that the government should listen to, too.I might slip sideways to what the previous speaker said about bulk-billing and her comment that there is absolutely no crisis in bulk-billing. I had no intention of talking about various aspects of bulk-billing as it relates to my electorate. In the northern part of the Shortland electorate that falls within the Lake Macquarie City Council area, we contacted 24 doctors. Out of those 24 doctors, only 19 bulk-bill pensioners. There were some doctors who would forward off their accounts and charge the pensioners between $5 and $10 to save them going to a Medicare office. But I think it is very important to point out that something like 22 per cent of doctors within the northern part of Shortland electorate were bulk-billing. It was a little less—under 20 per cent—in the southern part of the electorate, which is on the Central Coast. And an incredibly low percentage—under 10 per cent—of doctors in both the Lake Macquarie part of Shortland electorate and the Central Coast part of Shortland electorate bulk-billed all their patients.It is not true to say that bulk-billing has increased. There has been a dramatic decrease within my area and the areas of other members on this side of the House. We have actually monitored what is happening. It is not hearsay; it is fact. I needed to put that on record, but my contribution from here on will be quite brief.Prior to 1995, the National Health Act 1953 prevented private health insurance funds from providing benefits that were greater than the medical benefits schedule. Seventy-five per cent was provided by Medicare and 25 per cent by private health funds. The 1995 amendment allowed the establishment of purchaser-provider agreements between hospitals and doctors, and between hospitals and insurance companies. This was welcomed by some people. In the electorate of Shortland, not too many people welcomed it because it was not seen as a high priority—but some did and it was very important that it was dealt with. The Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Act 2000 amended both the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973. The amendments allowed private health funds to establish gap schemes. That helped some people but there are still some problems with it, as all members in this House would know. Health insurance funds claim that doctors are not participating in gap schemes within the spirit of the legislation. Some unscrupulous doctors even used the establishment of gap schemes to increase the cost of their services. That has been fairly widely documented, and it is something that members on either side of this House oppose. The AMA has serious concerns about using gap cover arrangements because it feels that they compromise the independence of the relationship between doctors and patients. There is probably a relationship between the two points that I have just made. Doctors like to be able to determine what prices they are charging their patients. In the overall scheme of things, probably the people who miss out and whose needs are not considered are those who rely on doctors, the government and health funds to ensure that the money that they are contributing—massive amounts of money—to health insurance is going to deliver them a service for which they will not have to pay a gap. The Consumer Health Forum of Australia was generally supportive of gap fund legislation. The government has put a lot of money into health insurance. The government made a choice, as is its prerogative, to invest in health insurance rather than public hospitals. I know that if we were in government our priorities would be funding public hospitals and ensuring that doctors bulk-bill, that Medicare is retained and that all Australians get access to good quality health coverage and services. The kind of service you receive should not be determined by your ability to pay private health insurance. The previous speaker also referred to the cost of health services. The country whose health service costs are amongst the highest is the United States. The model that this government seems to be moving us towards is a model that is very much driven by the private market and one in which access to health services—being able to receive medical treatment when you need it—is determined by your ability to pay. We on this side of the House believe that basic quality health care is the right of all Australians; it is not a privilege. The government should do some independent research of its own and find out just how supportive Australian people are of private health insurance and the issues raised in this legislation. It should find out whether or not Australian people are concerned about having a doctor they can go to who bulk-bills, about retaining Medicare and about having enough doctors in their area to have an appointment with their doctor when they are sick and not have to wait between seven and 14 days. We support this legislation. It is technical in nature. I have absolutely no problems with it.11:40:007294Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Initially, and as is customary, I would like to thank those honourable members who have participated in the debate on the Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Industry Measures) Bill 2002, which is before the chamber. 1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—You're very generous.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—My friend knows I am generous. I would also like to thank the opposition for their support of the amendments. I do think it is a little unfortunate, however, that a number of opposition members used this chance to divert from the particular measures of this bill and sought to criticise this government's outstanding record in the area of health. I noted with particular interest the comments made by opposition members on private health insurance and, in particular, the cost of private cover.When you look at what happened under the Australian Labor Party during those 13 dark years of office, you find that in 1983 they inherited a participation rate for private health insurance of 63.7 per cent and yet, by 1996 when the Keating government was swept from office, they had reduced that participation rate to 33.9 per cent. Under the coalition we have actually seen the participation rate increase to 44.1 per cent. In other words, we put a platform under the numbers of people leaving private health insurance and what is more we have made private health insurance attractive. This has meant that more people have taken the opportunity to take out private health insurance. By comparison, the Australian Labor Party flip-flops all over the place. We do not really know where they stand on the issue of the private health insurance rebate. They say one thing at one time and another thing at another time. 83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—We support it.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Some of you do. But if you listen to the comments made by opposition members in this debate, many of them seem to do anything other than support what the government has done. The member who has just spoken, the honourable member for Shortland, said that this government had chosen to invest in private health insurance at the expense of public hospitals. That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The government have an excellent record in the area of health. We are proud of our record. It ought to be recognised that every last cent of the goods and services tax is paid to the Australian states so that they are able to invest in the areas of their constitutional responsibilities, including health. I have to say that many state governments stand condemned by the Australian people because of their absolute avoidance of their responsibility—their absolute refusal to accept their role in the Australian federation, which is to fund public hospitals as they should. Under Labor, between 1990 and 1996, private health insurance premiums grew by an average 7.7 per cent a year. Forget about only one increase per year: often they rose three or four times per year. There was no control and no interest by the then Labor government in protecting the community. Maybe the member for Lowe was talking tongue in cheek, but he referred to what he called the government's serial practice of slugging families by stealth. The member for Lowe simply could not have been serious. This is just amazing, given the views in the Australian Labor Party on the government's 30 per cent rebate. This government has increased the numbers of people with private health insurance, provided a 30 per cent rebate—enhancing the affordability of private health insurance—and provided gap cover schemes rather than watch the health funds decline, as Labor did during its years in office. This government is committed to a viable public health system complemented by a private health insurance system. The member for Shortland seemed to think that this government was not interested in the public health system. That is simply not the case. The member for Stirling, who is still in the chamber, referred to premium increases. Under Labor, between 1990 and 1996 premiums grew by an average of 7.7 per cent per year. In one year alone, 1991-92—the member for Stirling will be shocked to hear me recall this—health insurance premiums grew by a monstrous 17 per cent of the CPI. The member for Stirling is clearly crying crocodile tears. At least she has the grace to smile at being found out. In this government's period in office, premiums have increased by substantially lower amounts than during the dark years of the Keating and Hawke Labor governments. Each and every Labor member has stood in this place this morning and derided the 30 per cent rebate, which provides about $750 to every Australian family with private cover. Private health insurance will always be 30 per cent cheaper under the coalition. Unfortunately, I do not have the statistics at the moment for the individual electorates around the country showing the numbers of people who have taken out private health cover and the numbers of people who take advantage of the government's private health insurance rebate. The honourable members who spoke on behalf of the opposition—the members for Lowe, Bruce, Stirling, Throsby and Shortland—would be shocked to know of the thousands of people in each of their electorates who have private health insurance. Those people will exact their revenge at the next election when they hear Labor members get up and deride this rebate from the Australian government, which enables many more people to take out private health insurance. I just so happen to have had handed to me information relating to private health insurance participation in New South Wales by electorate. The honourable member for Lowe was not supportive of private health insurance, yet he has thousands of people in his electorate who are strongly supportive of it.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.48 a.m. to 12.02 p.m.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Before I was abruptly interrupted by the division in the main chamber, I was talking about how members opposite are not speaking for their electorates when they fail to be entirely supportive of the private health insurance rebate. I think it would benefit the chamber if I advise it of the level of support for private health insurance in a number of electorates represented by members of the Australian Labor Party. The member for Lowe has 64.34 per cent of his people in private health insurance; the member for Bruce, 47.71 per cent; the member for Stirling, 59.49 per cent—almost 60 per cent; the member for Throsby, 35.23 per cent; and the member for Shortland, 40.82 per cent.It goes without saying that, if it were not for the government's private health insurance rebate, many of these people in Labor electorates would simply be unable to afford private health insurance. I believe that it is important that members of parliament listen to what their constituencies are saying, and it is really vital that their representations in fact reflect what people want. In my view, it is utterly despicable for the ALP to be less than entirely supportive of a system that has brought about private health insurance affordability to so many Australians.83CMcFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary.10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—Parliamentary Secretary, will you allow a question?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Yes.83CMcFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane—Parliamentary Secretary, isn't a major difference between private health funds under Labor and private health funds under this government the fact that penalty charges are paid if people drop in and out?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—What this government has done is to put a platform under the loss of people from private health insurance. I suppose there is a carrot and stick arrangement. We have sought to encourage people back into private health insurance. We have sought to make it obvious to them that they benefit if they remain in private health insurance and that they do not just join private health insurance at a stage in their life when they are high users of the system. The member for Stirling was referring to Lifetime Health Cover, and I am pleased to advise her that that is also the policy of the Australian Labor Party.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to ask a question of the member for Kingston or the member for Shortland. There seems to be some substantial confusion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Member for Dunkley, that is out of order. You can only seek to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—I will, then. Parliamentary Secretary, there seems to be some confusion about—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Member for Dunkley, you address your question through the chair. Are you seeking to ask a question?1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—Yes, I am.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Parliamentary Secretary, will you allow a question?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I will.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—Parliamentary Secretary, the members opposite, the member for Shortland and the member for Kingston, were confused about the ALP's policy. Is it clear that the ALP is supporting Lifetime Health Cover and private health insurance? The comments from across the way seemed to be quite different. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I would like to thank the member for Dunkley for his very perceptive question. He is a very strong supporter of private health insurance, of the rebate, and of making it affordable for ordinary, decent Australians to take out private health insurance. To answer the member's question, it is a fact that the Australian Labor Party technically supports Lifetime Health Cover, but unfortunately many of the remarks by Labor members in this debate indicate that they are unsupportive of the private health insurance rebate which, in effect, makes private health insurance attainable for their constituents.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—That would be at risk under Labor.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It certainly would be at risk under Labor, as the member for Dunkley has correctly pointed out. Because there are undoubtedly going to be further divisions in the main chamber, I just want to sum up by saying that this is a very important piece of legislation. I thank all honourable members for backing this legislation. I think, however, it is regrettable that the Australian Labor Party has seen fit to criticise the government when this government has made private health insurance affordable for more Australians and, in doing so, has also been able to make sure that the public health system is viable. A very vibrant private health insurance system means that the public health system remains viable, and that is particularly important.Before I sit down, the member for Shortland did refer to bulk-billing. The government does recognise that there has been a decline in bulk-billing. However, some 73 per cent of services provided by general practitioners are bulk-billed and, for people over the age of 65, over 80 per cent of the services are bulk-billed. So, while there has been a reduction, there is still a substantial, high proportion of services being bulk-billed. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Bills7297R16277297Debate resumed from 19 September, on motion by Mr Slipper:That this bill be now read a second time.12:09:007297Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The Treasury Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 contains a minor amendment, and Labor will support it. The amendment clarifies the operation of two acts: the Financial Sector (Collection of Data-Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001 and the General Insurance Reform Act 2001. The collection of data act sought to improve the quality of data that APRA collects from financial agencies for the purposes of prudential supervision. The General Insurance Reform Act sought to strengthen the prudential supervision regime for general insurers. This new bill does just one thing. It makes it clear that the provisions of the collection of data act commence immediately before the provisions of the General Insurance Reform Act. This will ensure that, where the same provisions of the Insurance Act 1973 are amended by both acts, the collection of data amendments operate first.The relevant provisions of the Insurance Act relate to the role, accountability and responsibility of auditors and actuaries, access to premises and the signing of documents. However, this bill has come before the House because of two careless errors by the government. The collection of data act was to commence on a date to be fixed by proclamation. The government duly proclaimed that the bill would commence on 1 October 2001. However, the proclamation was invalid. The government then proclaimed that the bill would commence on 1 July 2002, the same date that the General Insurance Reform Act commenced. However, in doing so, they failed to notice that this would create an ambiguity as to which act commenced first.Labor will support this bill, but urges the government to exercise greater care in the future and not waste this chamber's valuable time correcting their careless mistakes.12:11:007298Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Kingston for his support of this particular legislation. The purpose of this bill, the Treasury Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, is to clarify the operation of two acts—and the member for Kingston referred to that in his speech—the Financial Sector (Collection of Data-Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001 and the General Insurance Reform Act 2001.The bill is of a minor and technical nature and is designed to ensure that these two acts have their intended effects. The Financial Sector (Collection of Data-Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act and the General Insurance Reform Act both amended the Insurance Act 1973 for different purposes. The Financial Sector (Collection of Data-Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act, among other things, amended the Insurance Act to enable modernisation of APRA's data collections from general insurance companies. The General Insurance Reform Act amended the Insurance Act to substantially strengthen the prudential supervisory requirements for general insurers operating in Australia.The provisions of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data-Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act which amended the Insurance Act and the General Insurance Reform Act both commenced on 1 July this year. It had originally been intended that the provisions of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data-Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act amending the Insurance Act would commence on 1 October last year, in advance of the commencement of the General Insurance Reform Act. A proclamation was made to the Financial Sector (Collection of Data-Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act with this intent.On this basis, the General Insurance Reform Act was drafted as though the provisions of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data-Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act which amended the Insurance Act had already commenced. However, it was subsequently determined that, due to a technical difficulty, the proclamation of the provisions of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data-Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act which purported to amend the Insurance Act was ineffective. As a result, another effective proclamation was made. The effect of this was that the two acts, both amending the Insurance Act, and in some cases the same provisions of the Insurance Act, commenced on the same day.83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration.10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—Parliamentary Secretary, will you take the question?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Yes.83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—Would the parliamentary secretary concede that these were in fact errors—that the government not only did not get it right the first time but did not get it right at its second go—and that we are now back fixing the problem?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I think that my friend opposite is being a little harsh. Really, this is more a matter of finetuning.This has introduced some uncertainty as to which amendments to the Insurance Act were designed to commence first. This bill makes it clear that the amendments to the Insurance Act contained in the Financial Sector (Collection of Data-Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act commenced before the amendments contained in the General Insurance Reform Act. I commend this particular bill also to the chamber.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Main Committee adjourned at 12.16 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing7300The following answers to questions were circulated:7300(Question No. 550)5507300Vamvakinou, Maria, MPMs Vamvakinou00AMTCalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 18 June 2002:(1) What is his Department's estimate of foreigners working illegally in Australia each year from 1996 to 2001.(2) How many illegal visa overstaying foreigners were removed each year from 1996 to 2001.(3) What was the cost of locating and removing over stayers each year from 1996 to 2001.(4) What departmental measures have been taken to reduce the number of over stayers.(5) Does this Department plan a crackdown on the location and removal of overstayers; if so, what is the extent of the proposed measures.7300Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) It is not possible to provide a meaningful estimate of the number of non-citizens working illegally in Australia at any given point in time. This is because some non-citizens will have valid visas but be breaching conditions attached to those visas, whilst others will be working while they have overstayed their visa or are otherwise illegally in Australia.However in March 1999 the Government appointed an external Reference Group to guide a review of the issue of illegal workers in Australia. The Reference Group's report, entitled `Review of Illegal Workers in Australia' was released in November 1999.In the report the Reference Group estimated that 50 per cent of unlawful non-citizens are working illegally. The Reference Group also noted that the number of lawful visitors working in breach of their visa conditions was unknown.Based on the estimate of the Reference Group I provide the following table. The table covers estimates of overstayers and the consequent number of Illegal Workers going back to the year 2000. Overstayer figures prior to 2000 were derived using a different, less accurate methodology than that currently being used and are not statistically comparable to the current estimates. Period Ending 30 JuneEstimated Number of Overstayers*Estimated Number of Illegal Workers200160,00030,000200059,00029,500(2) The table below provides the number of unlawful non-citizens and people breaching their visa conditions who have left Australia as a result of Departmental compliance action in the years 1995/1996 to 2001/2002. These figures exclude fishermen, stowaways, smugglers, deserters and unauthorised boat arrivals. Financial YearTotal Removals2001/20029,5042000/20019,0541999/20008,9961998/19998,0541997/19987,4741996/19975,6541995/19965,381(3) Because of the wide range of other activities done in the compliance program (for example employer information, program integrity checking, visa cancellation and the removal of unauthorised boat arrivals) it is not possible to derive actual costs associated solely with the location and removal of overstayers. However to give some indication of the costs involved in the first eleven months of 2001/2002 it is estimated that my Department spent just under $30m in locating a total of 15,892 persons. For the same period it is estimated that approximately $14m was spent on removing 9,852 persons (this includes unlawful non-citizens, people breaching their visa conditions, fishermen, stowaways, smugglers, deserters and unauthorised boat arrivals).(4) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) is actively working on a number of onshore and offshore measures to reduce the number of overstayers in Australia. These measures include:· A network of specialist compliance officers located overseas to liaise with authorities such as local police and immigration officers to combat the number of people arriving in Australia illegally.· In association with other Government agencies, measures to enhance border surveillance systems and deter illegal migration. The whole-of-government approach to preventing people smuggling and illegal migration has ensured that attempted breaches of Australian borders are detected and intercepted.· Onshore compliance officers undertake regular field operations in both metropolitan areas and rural areas of Australia. Some of the field operations are organised in conjunction with other agencies such as Federal/State police, Centrelink and ATO officers.· The development of successful relationships with employers, educational institutions, and other Government agencies to gain the cooperation of the Australian community in assisting the Department locate overstayers.· Compliance teams are set up which target certain risk areas identified for the program. As examples such teams may focus on illegal worker and employer awareness campaigns, failed ministerial intervention applications, failed appeals to merits review tribunals and student compliance.· Implementation of a number of the recommendations of the Review of Illegal Workers in Australia. These include measures to discourage employers from employing illegal workers, including overstayers, as well as information to assist employers to identify illegal workers.(5) DIMIA plans to maintain its active and ongoing program of detection and removal of overstayers and persons breaching their visa conditions. These people are located through our regular field operations and through the action of Federal, State and Territory police forces and other agencies.7301(Question No. 587)5877301Grierson, Sharon, MPMs Grierson00AMPNewcastleALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 June 2002:How many people with a disability are employed by the Minister's Department or agencies under the Minister's administration in the electoral division of Newcastle.7301Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The two agencies within my portfolio that have staff in the Newcastle electorate are the Australian Customs Service (ACS) and the Family Court of Australia. It should be noted that individual employees are not required to provide information about a disability they may have. Employees may choose voluntarily to identify themselves as having a disability, either prior to commencement or during the course of their employment. I am advised that no employees in the ACS or the Family Court in Newcastle have identified themselves as persons with a disability.7301(Question No. 625)6257301Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek83MSydneyALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 June 2002:What is the Australian Government doing to assist the resolution of conflict over self-determination for Western Sahara, particularly in relation to his representations to the Moroccan Government on this issue.7301Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The following is the answer the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government supports the early holding of a referendum to determine the wishes of the population of Western Sahara on the question of independence or incorporation into the Kingdom of Morocco, so long as that remains the only process endorsed by the UN for resolving the dispute. On 30 July 2002, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1429, extending the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) until 31 January 2003. We have urged Morocco and Polisario to co-operate with the UN to facilitate implementation of the UN Framework Agreement as soon as possible. I have made Australia's views clear to the Moroccan Foreign Minister, most recently in a letter in August 2002.7302(Question No. 659)6597302Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:Has his Department issued a purchase order in the last 12 months to Novartis Animal Health of Pendle Hill, NSW.7302Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:My Department has advised that it has no record of a purchase order being issued to Novartis Animal Health of Pendle Hill, NSW, in the last 12 months.7302(Question No. 672)6727302Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Further to the answers to parts (2), (6) and (7) to question No. 394 provided by the Minister for Finance and Administration, will he answer those parts to question 394 left unanswered by that Minister.(2) Will he provide details of the advice, if any, he gave to the Minister for Finance and Administration prior to the sale of the assets. 7302Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (Part 2) The security of contractual and other relevant information held by ADI is monitored through the Department of Defence contract management processes and the Defence Industrial Security Program, which is managed by the Defence Security Authority. (Parts 6 and 7) There are no strategic military assets in private (ADI Group) hands. However, ADI operates facilities at Benalla, Mulwala and Garden Island (Sydney) that have industry capabilities regarded by Defence as important for the support of Australian Defence Force capability. The Benalla facility is owned by the ADI Group and the facilities at Mulwala and Garden Island remain Commonwealth-owned and are leased to ADI. The Commonwealth's interests in respect of all of these capabilities are adequately protected through appropriate contractual arrangements, including the industrial security requirements discussed in part (2) above.(2) No. However, there was full consultation between the former Ministers for Defence and Finance when they jointly developed options for the Government's consideration on how best to proceed with ADI's sale.7302(Question No. 681)6817302Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Further to paragraph 1 of the answer to part (3) of question No. 495, when will the Government's review be concluded.(2) Will a report of the review be made available to the public; if not, why not.(3) Further to paragraph 2 of the answer to part (3) of question 495, how does the Government propose to promote public debate and discussions to inform future policy, particularly as they relate to Australia's falling fertility rates.7303Andrews, Kevin, MPMr AndrewsHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) & (2) There is no formal review. There is no plan for a written report on fertility rates as a policy issue.(3) Public debate and policy consideration of this issue is ongoing and occurs in the context of family policy and a broad range of social and economic issues.7303(Question No. 701)7017303Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Further to the Government's announced sale of Point Cook Airfield, (a) is the Government intending to offer the property for sale as freehold or leasehold and (b) what have been the considerations given to the alternative forms of sale.(2) What is the anticipated sale price.(3) When does the Government anticipate the property will formally be offered for sale.(4) What national or international environmental classifications are associated directly or indirectly with the Point Cook site.(5) What specific environmental audit or audits of the site have been commissioned by or on behalf of the Defence Estates Organisation.(6) Has the Government discussed the environmental condition of the site with the Victorian Environment Protection Authority.(7) How does the Government intend to deal with any potential findings of environmental contamination of the site ahead of the sale being finalised.(8) What is the current value of the RAAF Museum collection at Point Cook.(9) What annual funding has been allocated by the Government or the RAAF to the RAAF Point Cook Museum in each year between 1990 and 2001.(10) How does the Government intend for the RAAF Museum to continue operations within a privately owned site, and what funding will the Government, either through the RAAF or other sources, deliver recurrently to the RAAF Museum.(11) Has the Government had any discussions with Victorian Government museum representatives about the relationship that might be developed between the RAAF Point Cook Museum and other museums in Victoria.(12) What provision is being made for the upgrading of electricity, sewerage and road services to the Point Cook site ahead of its sale.(13) How many RAAF personnel were housed on the Point Cook site at 1 August 2002, and how many of the children of the RAAF personnel attend the Point Cook Primary School.(14) When does the Government envisage RAAF personnel will depart the Point Cook site.(15) What are the current air traffic control arrangements at Point Cook.(16) What are the minimum air traffic control arrangements that the Government will require for any private owner to maintain.(17) What provision will be made for changes in minimum air traffic control arrangements at Point Cook if, after the date of sale, recommendations are made for increased control services out of the late-July 2002 collision and fatality at Moorabbin airport.7303Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) and (b) Initial planning anticipated the disposal of the site was as a freehold sale. Defence is currently considering a proposal for a leasehold sale and a recommendation will be provided to the Government once that consideration has been finalised. (2) Defence has not yet sought a market valuation for the property from an independent authority such as the Australian Valuation Office. A market valuation will be sought once the property is ready for marketing. The valuation will be commercial-in-confidence as its release may prejudice the sale price.(3) It is anticipated the property will be offered for sale in the 2002/03 financial year, although revenue is not anticipated until the 2003/04 financial year.(4) It is understood that the environmental classifications associated with the Point Cook site are covered by the Register of the National Estate, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Victoria Planning and Environment Act.(5) In January 1996, a Victorian EPA Accredited Environmental Auditor - Contaminated Land, undertook a Statutory Environmental Audit of a 6.159 ha portion of the site as part of a proposal to establish the National Air & Space Museum of Australia. Additionally, there have been a number of other environmental and related assessments conducted on the site, which are currently being reviewed. (6) Yes.(7) Defence is undertaking further investigation to complement the existing environmental information and gain a comprehensive understanding of issues on the property. Where appropriate, Defence will undertake remediation consistent with future land use; however, all information on the site condition will be made available to potential purchasers.(8) A major stocktake program is currently underway to catalogue and value the RAAF heritage collection. It is currently conservatively valued at $40million.(9) Annual operating allocations for RAAF Museum, excluding salaries, have been: Year$million1990/910.2501991/920.2501992/930.2501993/940.5001994/950.5061995/960.4671996/970.3451997/980.5001998/990.4861999/20000.5002000/010.6192001/020.611(10) It is intended that the precinct occupied by RAAF Museum will remain under a form of Commonwealth control after the sale of Point Cook. It is anticipated that recurrent Museum funding will remain consistent with current funding levels.(11) RAAF Museum works closely with the Australian War Memorial in regard to advice and expertise on aircraft and technical equipment. RAAF Museum has a working relationship with other institutions, such as the Museum of Victoria, in providing advice on technical equipment that may be acquired by those institutions.(12) No consideration has been afforded to the upgrade of these services. Defence is disposing of the site on an “as is” basis.(13) As at 15 August 2002 (figures as at 1 August 2002 not readily available) there were 19 Defence families occupying married quarters on Point Cook base, not all of whom are posted to RAAF Williams, and 126 single or unaccompanied members, predominantly students, occupying single living-in accommodation. Defence does not maintain data on the schools attended by Defence personnel. However, I understand that there are approximately 10-12 Defence children at Point Cook Primary School. (14) The majority of RAAF personnel will depart the site when the RAAF College is relocated by approximately 2005. A small cadre of RAAF personnel will remain within RAAF Museum and Australian Airforce Cadet billets on the site indefinitely. (15) The Point Cook airfield is an unlicensed airfield. Aircraft using the airfield are required to have signed an Airfield Use Agreement and have it lodged with KFPW, Defence's property manager for leases and licences at the site. An Airfield Manager contracted by Defence monitors air movements. The air traffic control tower is not in operation. The current air traffic control arrangements are for Mandatory Broadcast Zone operations.(16) The Commonwealth will not have any minimum air traffic control arrangements. Air movements after the sale of the property will be the responsibility of the new owner. The Wyndham City Council has advised that it has adopted a figure of 100,000 movements per year for planning purposes in the area. Defence has incorporated this figure into one of the scenarios developed in considering the possible future strategic land use. Any formal air traffic arrangement will be the responsibility of the State and/or local government.(17) This will be an issue for the new owner and the State authorities to determine.7305(Question No. 702)7027305Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) What specific improvements in Telstra services have been achieved in the Albury Wodonga region since April 2002, and what is the specific methodology used to demonstrate any improvement.(2) What specific improvements in Telstra services have been achieved in the Gippsland South region over the past 12 months, and what is the methodology for demonstrating any improvement.(3) What specific improvements in Telstra services have been achieved in the (a) eastern and (b) northern suburbs of Melbourne since 1 January 2002, and what is the methodology for demonstrating any improvement.7305McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question based on information provided by Telstra:The Customer Service Guarantee (CSG) is part of the Government's comprehensive regulatory safety-net. The CSG requires telephone companies to meet specified timeframes for the connection and repair of telephone services for residential and small business customers, or pay compensation. Timeframes under the CSG for service connection have been progressively tightened since its introduction. Compliance with the CSG has been used as an indicator of service performance in relation to new connections (Service Activations) and fault repairs (Service Assurance) in the following answer. It should be noted that CSG performance can be adversely affected by factors outside Telstra's control such as extreme weather and other seasonal factors, especially when looking at defined geographical areas.The following figures provided by Telstra are based on Telstra's Service Regions.(1) Telstra has advised that CSG compliance figures for Service Assurance in the Albury/Wodonga Region improved from 85.5% in April 2002 to 92.5% as at June 2002.Over the same period CSG figures for Service Activation moved from 92% to 94.8%.(2) CSG performance for Service Assurance in the Gippsland Region averaged 93.1% for the period July to November 2001. In December 2001, the Gippsland Service Area was expanded to include the Seymour area and is now known at the South Eastern Service Delivery Area. From December 2001 to June 2002, CSG Assurance performance for the South Eastern Service Delivery area averaged 93.3%.CSG performance for Service Activation in the Gippsland Region averaged 95.8% for the period July to November 2001. In December 2001, the Gippsland Service Area was expanded to include the Seymour area and is now known as the South Eastern Service Delivery area. From December 2001 to June 2002, CSG Activation performance for the South Eastern Service Delivery area averaged 95.3%.(3) The eastern and northern suburbs of Melbourne are serviced by one Telstra service region. This area is bounded by Ferntree Gully and Kinglake in the east and Coburg and Sunbury in the west.Telstra has advised that CSG performance for Service Assurance in this area has improved from 91% in January 2002 to 97% at June 2002. CSG figures for Service Activation rose from 94% in January 2002 to 95% as at June 2002.7306(Question No. 724)7247306Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Does the Minister's Department administer any programs relating to illicit drug use.(2) If so, what has been the level of expenditure on these programs in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98, (c) 1998-99, (d) 1999-2000, (e) 2000-2001 and (f) 2001-2002.(3) In relation to programs which have allowed organisations to apply for funding for the delivery of services or programs, (a) what is the name of each program and (b) what was the level of expenditure in each State in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98, (c) 1998-99, (d) 1999-2000, (e) 2000-2001 and (f) 2001-2002 on each program.(4) In relation to funding under these programs, (a) how many applications were received from within the electoral divisions of (i) Chisholm, (ii) Aston, (iii) Deakin, (iv) Latrobe and (v) Casey, (b) what is the name of each organisation that submitted an application, (c) what was the purpose of the funding being sought in each case, (d) what was the value of funding sought in each case and (e) if the application was successful, (i) what level of funding was granted and (ii) in which federal electoral division is the organisation located.(5) In relation to programs that do not provide for organisations to apply for funding, what was the level of expenditure for each program in the electoral divisions of (a) Chisholm, (b) Aston, (c) Deakin, (d) Latrobe and (e) Casey in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98, (iii) 1998-99, (iv) 1999-2000, (v) 2000-2001 and (vi) 2001-2002.7306Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by my department as follows:(1) No(2) to (5) N/A7306(Question No. 767)7677306Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Which Reserve units, companies, battalions or brigades have been designated High Readiness.(2) How many Reservists have been designated High Readiness Reserve and Active Reserve.(3) How many Reservists have been designated High Readiness Reserve without being in a High Readiness Unit.(4) Will such High Readiness Reserves be utilised as slots in Regular Army or in formed Reserve units; if so, what are the criteria for their utilisation.7306Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) None. The authority for Service Chiefs to raise new Reserve categories of service such as High Readiness will not come into effect until new Defence (Personnel) Regulations are passed into law. This process is not likely to occur until 1 December 2002. The size and structure of such a category would be based upon the Army's preparedness requirements as determined through regular reviews and higher direction. Options are being examined as part of the Army's development of models for the sustainment of combat forces under guidance provided in the Defence 2000 White Paper.(2) None, at this stage. When the new Defence (Personnel) Regulations come into effect it is planned that members currently serving in the General Reserve will be re-categorised as Active Reservists.(3) None.(4) If a High Readiness category is to be raised it is unlikely that whole units would be designated as High Readiness as the nature of Reserve service would not enable all members to be available at short notice. It is envisaged that should a High Readiness component be established it would be utilised to support Army's short notice contingencies. 7307(Question No. 768)7687307Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:What is the period of the notice to move for a High Readiness Reserve and how is that different for a similar Active Reserve (a) individual, (b) unit, (c) company, (d) battalion or (e) brigade.7307Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:No period of notice to move has been specified. Should a High Readiness category be established the period of notice will be based upon the Army's preparedness requirements.7307(Question No. 769)7697307Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) What is the training requirement for a High Readiness Reserve and how is that different for a similar Active Reserve (a) individual, (b) unit, (c) company, (d) battalion or (e) brigade.(2) What is the extra dollar investment in training for a High Readiness Reserve (a) individual, (b) unit, (c) company, (d) battalion or (e) brigade.7307Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) As a High Readiness category is yet to be established the specific training requirements and obligations have not been determined. It is envisaged that the fundamental difference between a High Readiness Reservist and an Active Reservist would be the periods of notice in which individuals would be expected to report for full-time service. High Readiness Reservists would be expected to be at a standard that allowed them to deploy at periods of notice similar to many of their Regular Army counterparts.(2) No additional investment has been determined.7307(Question No. 770)7707307Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Has it been estimated that it costs $4.2 billion to fully equip the Army.(2) What is the estimated cost to fully equip the (a) High Readiness Reserve (i) individual, (ii) unit, (ii) company, (iv) battalion or (v) brigade and the (b) Active Reserve (i) individual, (ii) unit, (iii) company, (iv) battalion or (v) brigade.(3) What additional equipment is being provided for High Readiness Reserve and (a) what is its cost and (b) which units will get what equipment and at what cost.7307Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No. The Portfolio Budget Statement indicates that the cost of the Army's total output for 2002/2003 will be $5.192 billion.(2) Cost estimates are yet to be completed. (3) Equipment requirements are yet to be determined.7307(Question No. 771)7717307Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) How many potential High Readiness and Active Reservists are expected to be recruited in (a) 2002 and (b) 2003.(2) What is the estimated cost per reserve recruit in (a) 2002 and (b) 2003 for (i) advertising and (ii) training.7308Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Army would not expect to recruit directly to the High Readiness Reserve. If such a category is established it is envisaged that members of the High Readiness Reserve would be required to satisfy a selection criteria and would elect to be transferred from other parts of the Army. The number of recruits that may be required to feed new categories is being examined. The Army recruited 2,712 Reserve recruits in financial year 2001/02 and has a recruitment target of 3,098 for financial year 2002/03.(2) (a) 2001/2002 was: (i) $996.00(ii) $23,594.00(b) 2002/2003 is estimated at:(i) $839.00(ii) $25,953.007308(Question No. 772)7727308Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Is there a mechanism for designating High Readiness Reserves or is it done voluntarily; if so, what are the details.(2) What was the mechanism and or criteria for determining which units would be High Readiness Reserve and Active Reserve.7308Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions:(1) If a High Readiness category is raised it would be filled on a voluntary basis. It is envisaged that individuals would be required to satisfy particular proficiency and availability criteria but would be administered within their current Reserve unit.(2) If a High Readiness category is raised it is highly unlikely that whole units or larger formations would be designated High Readiness as the nature of Reserve Service would not enable all members to be available at short notice. The current thinking is that individuals and groups within standing Reserve units and formations may become High Readiness Reserves after satisfying particular criteria. The numbers that might be required are under examination as part of a wider capability development project to meet the Army's Defence 2000 White Paper requirements.7308(Question No. 773)7737308Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) What is the proportion of regular army personnel for High Readiness Reserve and Active Reserve (a) units, (b) companies, (c) battalions or (d) brigades.7308Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:There is no plan to change the current allocation of Regular members regardless of any future initiatives to establish new Reserve categories.7309(Question No. 774)7747309Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Does Army have a plan to close Reserve depots; if so, (a) what is it called and (b) is it publicly available.(2) For each calendar year from 1996 to date, (a) which Reserve depots have closed, (b) where were they located, (c) when did they close and (d) were any sold; if so, for what sum.(3) Are further Reserve depots closures expected; if so, (a) which Reserve depots, (b) what are their locations and (c) when are they expected to close.7309Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Army does not possess a plan that formally depicts which Reserve depots will close.(a) The Army does possess the Army Facilities Plan 2001 which provides guidance for the acquisition, development and environmental management of facilities and training areas appropriate to Army capability outputs. It also contains an annex that outlines Army occupied properties identified for possible disposal. (b) No.(2) (a), (b) and (c) The database information recorded does not specifically identify facilities occupied by Reserve Units as Reserve Depots. Attached is a list of training depots and drill halls that may have accommodated Reserve Units, and which have been sold during the period Financial Year 1995-96 to date.(d) Due to confidentiality limitations, it is inappropriate for Defence to disclose the sale price of the individual properties. (3) Further Reserve depot closures are possible as Defence rationalises its estate.(a), (b) and (c) This information has not been determined. This is dependant on the strategic outlook and capability outputs required by the Army and Defence. TRAINING DEPOTS AND DRILL HALLS WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD FROM FINANCIAL YEAR (FY) 1996 TO DATE: FYPROPERTYADDRESSSTATEDESCRIPTION1995/96MerrylandsWoodville Road, MerrylandsNSWTraining Depot1995/96Millers PointTrinity Avenue/Lower Fort Street, Millers PointNSWTraining Depot1995/96BlacksmithsPacific Highway, BlacksmithsNSWTraining Depot1995/96NewcastleKing Street, NewcastleNSWTraining Depot1995/96MoorookaHamilton Road, MoorookaQLDTraining Depot1995/96SarinaHoey Street, SarinaQLDTraining Depot1995/96Deloraine35 West Church Street, DeloraineTASTraining Depot1995/96CaulfieldKooyong Road and Doran Street, CaulfieldVICTraining Depot1996/97HurstvilleDora Street, HurstvilleNSWTraining Depot1996/97LeichhardtMarlborough Street, LeichhardtNSWTraining Depot1996/97Randwick (Carrington Rd)Carrington Rd, RandwickNSWTraining Depot1996/97Beulah Park3-5 Union Street, Beulah ParkSATraining Depot1996/97Huonville20 Wilmot Street, HuonvilleTASTraining Depot1996/97LongfordCnr Malcombe and Marlborough Streets, LongfordTASTraining Depot1996/97Glenorchy2 Harold Street, GlenorchyTASTraining Depot1996/97Ulverstone17 Water Street, UlverstoneTASTraining Depot1996/97Fitzroy North140 Queens Parade, Fitzroy NthVICTraining Depot1996/97North Carlton526 Park Street, Nth CarltonVICTraining Depot1996/97Richmond24 Gipps Street, RichmondVICTraining Depot1997/98WilloughbyLot 9 Warrane Road, WilloughbyNSWTraining Depot1997/98Fitzroy16 George Street, FitzroyVICDrill Hall1997/98CobramDillon Street, CobramVICTraining Depot1997/98Beaumaris House82 Sandy Bay Road, HobartTASTraining Depot1997/98Scottsdale Gres29 Alfred Street, ScottsdaleTASTraining Depot1997/98BroomeLot 1801 Blackman Street, BroomeWANORFORCE Depot1997/98KununurraLot 1544 Poincettia Way, KununurraWANORFORCE Depot1997/98CollieThrossell Street, CollieWATraining Depot1997/98Alberton20-32 Sussex Street, Alberton, AdelaideSATraining Depot1998/99Crows NestCarlow Street, Crows NestNSWTraining Depot1998/99Arncliffe2 Arncliffe Street, ArncliffeNSWTraining Depot1998/99Forest Lodge69-73 Hereford Street, GlebeNSWTraining Depot1998/99Somerton Park32A Scarborough Street, Somerton Park, AdelaideSATraining Depot1999/00SANDGATECnr Lagoon Street and Bowser Parade, SandgateQLDTraining Depot1999/00Porton BarracksTills Street, Westcourt, CairnsQLDTraining Depot1999/00Kelvin Grove (Gona Barracks)Ramsgate Street, Kelvin GroveQLDTraining Depot1999/00East MelbournePowlett Street, East MelbourneVICDrill Hall1999/00HamiltonCnr Milton, Francis and McPherson Streets, HamiltonVICTraining Depot1999/00Dunlop Barracks, Brighton16-24 Landcox Street, BrightonVICTraining Depot1999/00Homebush14-16 Station Street, HomebushNSWTraining Depot1999/00LithgowCnr Sandford Avenue and Railway ParadeNSWTraining Depot2000/01Homebush12-16 Station Street, HomebushNSWTraining Depot2000/01Padstow68 Davies Road, PadstowNSWTraining Depot2000/01Belmore (lot 2)684-700 Canterbury Road, BelmoreNSWTraining Depot2000/01Belmore (lot 1)684-700 Canterbury Road, BelmoreNSWTraining Depot2000/01GoondiwindiCunningham Highway, GoondawindiQLDTraining Depot2000/01Victoria Street53 Victoria Street, MelbourneVICTraining Depot2001/02Cooma38 Bombala Street NSWTraining Depot2001/02Ranger BarracksCnr Shepperd Street and Lowe Street, BallaratVICBarracks2001/02MaryboroughGoldsmith Street, MaryboroughVICTraining Depot2001/02Traralgon40-50 Queens Parade, TraralgonVICTraining Depot2001/02TorrensKintore Avenue, AdelaideSATraining Depot2001/02Gladesville144 Ryde Road, GladesvilleNSWArmy Reserve Depot2001/02Annerley172 Dudley St, AnnerleyQLDTraining Depot7311(Question No. 778)7787311George, Jennie, MPMs GeorgeJH5ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Are Australian Defence Force personnel issued with all uniforms and equipment free of charge when beginning their training.(2) If so, can personnel swap worn out, lost or damaged uniforms and equipment on a one for one basis or are they required to pay for all new uniforms and equipment after their initial issue.(3) If personnel are forced to pay for their own replacement uniforms and equipment are they able to claim it back on tax; if not, why not.(4) Is it the case that the families of (a) Navy personnel deployed on operations overseas are able to send mail for no cost up to 3kg, (b) Army personnel deployed on operations overseas are able to send mail for no cost up to 2kg and (c) Air Force personnel deployed on operations overseas are able to send mail for no cost up to 1kg; if so, (d) why are the weights at which families can send mail different for the different services and (e) what action does the Minister intend to take to remedy these discrepancies.7311Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes.(2) After the initial free issue, a Uniform Maintenance Allowance is paid to assist members to maintain an approved scale of uniforms in good order and condition. However, provisions exist for field uniforms and equipment that are worn out or damaged due to everyday wear and tear to be exchanged on a one for one basis unless they are lost or damaged through the members' negligence. In that case replacement of the items must be paid for by the member.Reserve Australian Defence Force members, not on continuous full-time duty, are issued replacement clothing and equipment on a one for one basis. Again, loss or damage of uniforms due to the members negligence requires replacement costs to be met by the member.(3) Uniform Maintenance Allowance is paid to eligible Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel fortnightly as a non-taxed allowance. Personnel are required to justify expenditure on uniform and uniform-related items in their taxation returns at the end of each financial year as per normal work-related clothing deduction arrangements. ADF personnel in receipt of the Uniform Maintenance Allowance are required to pay tax on any amount of the allowance that cannot be substantiated as expended on the maintenance of their uniforms.(4) `Free' mail limits for ADF personnel deployed overseas do not differ between the three Services. These limits are set by Commander Australian Theatre, in consultation with others, including Australia Post. These limits are based on the nature and location of the operation, as well as logistic support considerations.The cost of sending mail to ADF personnel deployed on operations is subsidised by Defence. The rate of subsidy is determined as a component of the conditions of service for each operation, and thus varies between operations. Currently, operations in East Timor and the Australian contribution to the war on terrorism attract the highest subsidies.For example, a package of up to 20kgs can be sent free of charge to East Timor, where the same package to a member serving in Israel would be charged at the Australian domestic rate applicable from the point of lodgment in Sydney. Mail or packages for personnel deployed as part of the Australian contribution to the war on terrorism are only free up to a limit of 1kg. Anything over 1kg is charged at the Australian domestic rate applicable from the point of lodgment to Sydney.7311(Question No. 779)7797311George, Jennie, MPMs GeorgeJH5ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) How many residential detoxification beds are available in the electoral division of Throsby and where are they located.(2) How many residential detoxification beds are available in the Illawarra area, which hospitals, or non-government organisations provide them and where are they located.(3) How many residential rehabilitation beds are available in the electoral division of Throsby.(4) How many residential rehabilitation beds are available in the Illawarra area, which hospitals, or non-government organisations provide them and where are they located.(5) What facilities exist in the electoral division of Throsby and the wider Illawarra area for the treatment of people suffering from a combined mental illness and drug dependency.(6) Which service providers in the electoral division of Throsby and the wider Illawarra area are offering treatment for people with a drug dependency and what is the nature of their treatment and services.(7) What is the nature of the Commonwealth assistance provided in the electoral division of Throsby and in the wider Illawarra area to assist in the area of prevention and treatment of illicit drug abuse.7312Andrews, Kevin, MPMr AndrewsHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) to (6)The NSW State Government is primarily responsible for the delivery of drug and alcohol services in NSW. Information about services available in the areas specified will need to be provided by the NSW State Government.(7) Under the National Illicit Drugs Strategy the Commonwealth Government provides funding for prevention and treatment of illicit drug use through the Non-Government Organisation (NGO) Treatment Grants Program, the Community Partnerships Initiative and the Council of Australian Government's (COAG) Drug Diversion Initiative. Details of the funding provided under these programs in the wider Illawarra area is at Attachment A. ATTACHMENT AFunding Provided by the Commonwealth Government to projects in the Throsby electorate and wider Illawarra area under the National Illicit Drug StrategyNGO Treatment Grants Program: Organisation NameLocationTarget GroupDescription of ServiceFundingOver 4 yearsKedesh HouseWollongongFamiliesThe Family Intervention Project is an education, support and counselling service aimed at improving the mental health and functioning capacity of illicit substance abusers, their partners and other family members.$100,000 for one yearKedesh HouseWollongong Youth with dual diagnosisThe development and implementation of intervention and treatment programs for youth at risk of continuance of substance use problems and for youth in need of structured residential and non-residential treatment for problematic substance use and high levels of problem behaviour. Particular focus on those with a dual diagnosis.$546,000Mission Australia Ltd.Illawarra &SouthernHighlands Marginalised young peopleExtension of drug intervention and treatment services within the overall Triple Care Farm program targeted at marginalised young people.$129,000Wollongong Crisis CentreWollongong People in the Wollongong areaIncrease staffing levels to secure the provision of existing residential services, meeting best practice guidelines and to develop ambulatory detoxification service.$547,000Community Partnerships Initiative: Organisation NameLocationTarget GroupDescription of ProjectFundingOver 2 yearsBellambi Neighbour-hood CentreBellambiWomen (15-24 years)The “Youth Drug Education and Programs Team” project aims to invite young women (15-24 years) to participate in a prevention education training program. Ongoing workshops will equip them with skills and knowledge in team work skills, program planning etc. The participants will then form the “Youth Drugs Prevention Advisory Team” that will aim to develop strategies and programs to assess needs; disseminate information about the Team and the aims of the project.$67,000Kedesh Rehabilitation ServicesBerkeleyParentsThis project aims to further develop and evaluate the TANDEM Training Program for parents in outer-metropolitan, rural and remote communities. The program is based on the premise that prevention and early intervention must increase young people's personal and environmental resilience for protection against risk of drug and alcohol misuse.$79,000COAG Drug Diversion Initiative: Organisation NameLocationTarget GroupDescription of ProgramCost2001/2002Illawarra Health ServiceWollongong /ShoalhavenSuitable adult offenders who have illicit drug abuse as the precipitating factor for the offence.Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment (MERIT)Assessment and outpatient case management and counselling through the Illawarra Area Health Service.$340,000Wollongong Crisis CentreWollongongas aboveDetoxification and residential rehabilitation$30,000Kedesh HouseBerleleyas aboveResidential rehabilitation$30,000There are a number of other Statewide programs funded under the Diversion Initiative that provide funding for police cautioning and treatment to divert offenders from the criminal justice system and give an opportunity for drug users to access education and/or treatment. These programs include the:Young Offenders' Act - This Scheme applies to children apprehended by police for a wholly summary drug offence involving not more than the statutory small quantity of the drug, or for an offence that is drug-related. This means police, in appropriate circumstances, can issue a caution or warning, or organise a youth justice conference in lieu of commencing court proceedings and Cannabis Cautioning Scheme - The Scheme provides police officers with the discretion to caution adult offenders in relation to the use and possession of dried cannabis and the possession of equipment for the administration of cannabis. A person can only be cautioned if they have no prior convictions for drug offences or offences of violence or sexual assault.Offenders are given written legal and health information on the use of cannabis. The caution also lists the dedicated cannabis phone line for the Alcohol and Drug Information Service (ADIS). From 1 September 2001, NSW Police commenced the issue of Second Caution Notices where offenders are required to contact ADIS to undertake a mandatory health education session on the use of cannabis.7314(Question No. 781)7817314Corcoran, Ann, MPMs Corcoran009CWIsaacsALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) What was the sale price of the Defence property known as Chicquita Park, located at Levanto Street, Mentone, Vic., sold in December 2001.(2) On what date was (a) the property sold and (b) the sale price agreed upon by the Minister's Department and the purchaser.(3) What conditions, if any, applied to the sale.(4) How many tenderers submitted a bid.(5) Was the price in the tender of the eventual purchaser the highest price of all tenders.(6) By what process did the Minister's Department satisfy itself that the final price agreed with the purchaser was a reasonable price for the property.(7) During negotiations with Kingston Council prior to the sale of Chicquita Park, what estimated value did the Minister's Department place on the property.7314Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Due to confidentiality limitations, it is inappropriate for Defence to disclose the sale price of individual properties.(2) (a) Contracts were exchanged on 20 December 2001 and settlement occurred on 20 March 2002.(b) The price was agreed on 20 December 2001 when a deposit was accepted on the exchange of contracts.(3) The only condition of sale was that the purchaser offered a lease of up to three years to the Mentone Scout Group.(4) Five conforming tenders and four non-conforming tenders were received. (5) No.(6) The department obtained a valuation from a certified valuer in June 2001 indicating a market value for the site of between $2,000,000 and $2,500,000.(7) A valuation based on a residential zoning was obtained in 1999 and the market value of the property at that time was estimated at $2,900,000.7314(Question No. 800)8007314Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 August 2002:(1) How many (a) full time permanent staff, (b) part time permanent staff, (c) full time contract staff and (d) part time contract staff were employed by (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) agencies within the Minister's portfolio as at (A) 30 March 1996 and (B) 30 June 2002.(2) For each category of engagement referred to in part (1) and employed by (a) the Minister's Department and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, where were such persons located in (i) 30 March 1996 and (ii) 30 June 2002.7314Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (A) The information sought by the honourable member in relation to part (1)(A) and part (2)(i) of his question is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the use of the resources that would be required to provide that information. I am able to inform the honourable member, however, that data on APS staffing as at 30 June 1996 is contained in the Australian Public Service Statistical Bulletin 1995-1996 which is publicly available. The honourable member should be aware, however, that changes in APS functions and administrative arrangements between 1996 and 2002 may render direct comparisons between the data for those years invalid. (B) See attached table - Number of personnel in the Australian Defence Organisation as at June 2002.(2) (i) See (1) (A) above. (ii) See attached table - Employee numbers by State in the Australian Defence Organisation as at June 2002.(1) (B)Civilian PersonnelPermanent Full Time16453Permanent Part Time321Contract Full Time1434Contract Part Time72Total Civilian Personnel18370Permanent ADF PersonnelNavy12605Army25710Air Force13590Total ADF51365Reserve ADF PersonnelNavy1237Army17156Air Force2608Total Reserves21001TOTAL PERSONNEL90736(2) (ii) Permanent NSWVICQLDSAWATASNTACTO/STOTALNavy51582117788122244822519124818312605Army509633479475564820893497195532725170Air Force485313282387176638361103156519913590Total ADF15107679212650245236511175119476870951365Active ReservesNSWVICQLDSAWATASNTACTO/STOTALNavy45512113867178625515741237Army494831704211136517167306453601117156Air Force533362741340183198334612608Total Reserves593636535090177220778117838631621001Civilian PersonnelNSWVICQLDSAWATASNTACTO/STOTALPermanent Full Time336835211273180845781315560811216543Permanent Part Time4760233811591262321Contract Full Time2873471959164125738101434Contract Part Time141213931217172Total Civilian Personnel371639401504194653599383613211518370TOTAL PERSONNELNSWVICQLDSAWATASNTACTO/STOTAL247591438519244617062631027628511763840907367316(Question No. 830)3307316Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 2002:(1) How many secondary movement relocation (class 451) visas has the government issued to date to successful asylum seekers.(2) What were the countries of origin of these visa holders.(3) Of those issued a secondary movement relocation visa, how many were (a) partners and (b) children of temporary protection visa holders who are already in Australia.(4) Are temporary protection visas for 3 years duration and Secondary Movement Relocation visas for 5 years; if so, does this mean that the Government proposes to review separately, and at different times, the continuing need for protection of individual family members.7316Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As at 6 September 2002, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) had issued 119 Secondary Movement Relocation (subclass 451) (SMR) visas:· 34 SMR visas were issued to persons residing in Indonesia; and· 85 SMR visas were issued to persons residing in Nauru.(2) As at 6 September 2002, DIMIA had issued SMR visas to:· 107 Iraqi nationals;· 1 Iranian national;· 3 Afghani nationals;· 4 Palestinian nationals; and· 4 stateless persons.(3) As at 6 September 2002 of the 119 persons issued with SMR visas:(a) 31 were partners of Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) holders already in Australia; and (b) 66 were minors with a parent TPV holder already in Australia.(4) TPVs are issued for a period of 3 years and SMR visas are issued for a period of 5 years. It is possible that members of a single family unit who have arrived in Australia under different circumstances or at different times have been issued with different temporary humanitarian visa types with different expiry dates. It is therefore possible that they may have any subsequent claims for ongoing protection considered at different times. However, holders of these visas in Australia are able to lodge further applications for protection at any time and the Minister is able to decide such applications at any time. Opportunities thus exist for the Minister to align the terms of visas subsequently granted to family groups, if appropriate, should they apply together.7317(Question No. 834)8347317Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 August 2002:(1) What is the full year budget cost of the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force following the appointment of the Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Peter Newsman, to the position.(2) When will the Director of Military Prosecutions be appointed.7317Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) $1,018,700.00.(2) The creation of a Director of Military Prosecutions will require legislative change to the Defence Force Discipline Act. Pending legislative change an interim Director of Military Prosecutions model will be put in place. The Chiefs of Service Committee will consider the final interim model in October 2002, with the interim Director of Military Prosecutions commencing operations in 2003.7317(Question No. 841)8417317Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 2002:(1) Is he aware of Channel Nines Sunday programs claim that 13% of oil for food revenue is to be distributed to the Kurdish population in Northern Iraq.(2) Is he able to say why the World Health Organisation (WHO) allows Baghdad to distribute or not distribute medicines brought under the oil for food program to the Kurdish region.(3) Is he able to say whether US$250 million is being earmarked for Kurdistan per annum, and about $200 million per annum remains in accounts controlled by the regime in Iraq.(4) Is he also able to say whether there are widespread shortages of key medicines in Kurdistan and Northern Iraq.(5) Has the Australian Government had representatives visit Kurdistan since the establishment of the northern no fly zone.(6) Has the Australian Government made representations to the WHO about the more equitable distribution of the oil for food plan; if not, why not.7317Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. United Nations' resolutions stipulate that 13 per cent of total revenue from the Oil-for-Food Programme will fund the humanitarian programme in the three northern governorates of Iraq.(2) The United Nations Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme is responsible for the storage, handling, internal transportation, distribution and confirmation of equitable distribution of humanitarian supplies in the three northern governorates. Distribution is not undertaken in these three northern governorates by the Iraqi Regime.(3) Money raised from the Oil-for-Food Programme is placed into UN escrow accounts and is not controlled by the Iraqi Regime. The total annual revenue collected by the Oil-for-Food Programme, 13 per cent of which funds the humanitarian programme for the three northern governorates, fluctuates depending on oil sales made by Iraq and changes in oil price.(4) Yes. A UN Secretary-General report released in November 2001 pursuant to UNSCR 1360 indicates significant shortages of domestically produced medicines and medical supplies, and periodic shortages of imported medicines and medical supplies in the three northern governorates.(5) Yes.(6) No. According to a technical report prepared by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN in 2000, improvements in the nutritional situation in the north started in 1994, prior to UNSCR 986 (1995). This is due to greater resources in the north - the north has 9 per cent of the land area of Iraq but nearly 50 per cent of the productive arable land - and receives higher levels of assistance per person. The north also benefits from the greater flexibility the use of cash gives agencies for the more effective operation and management of programmes.7318(Question No. 857)8577318Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 August 2002:(1) Is he able to say whether in July 2002 there were mass demonstrations in Tehran calling for the end of the Islamic Republic.(2) Is he able to say whether six leading members of Irans notorious Revolutionary Guard issued a communiqué in support of the people of Iran.(3) Is he able to say whether the Grand Ayatollah Taheri of Esfehan openly sided with student demonstrators, calling on the ruling theocracy to give up power.(4) Is he able to say whether Ayatollah Taheris announcement against the tyranny of the current Iranian regime also included a defence of Ayatollah Montazeri, one of the most outspoken domestic critics of Iran who has been under house arrest for years.(5) Is he able to say whether Ayatollah Taheris announcement applauded Montazeris fatwah or ruling against the practice of suicide bombing.(6) Is he able to say whether ayatollahs from Qom have been in clandestine contact with the son of the late Shah of Iran asking him to send cassettes verbalizing a message of non-violent civil disobedience against the regime.(7) Is he able to say whether during the demonstrations, the Iranian police force was confined to barracks and foreigners with paramilitary training, chiefly Palestinian and Iraqi Arabs, and Uzbeks and Tadzhiks from Afghanistan, were sent to beat the demonstrators down.(8) Is he also able to say whether during these demonstrations the protestors also denounced President Mohammad Khatami.7318Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) On 9 July 2002 there were demonstrations in Tehran of an estimated 4,000 people protesting ongoing imprisonment of student leaders arrested three years previously and calling for increased freedom and greater regard for human rights.(2) I am unaware of any such communiqué.(3) No.(4) Yes.(5) No.(6) I have no evidence to substantiate or discount such a claim.(7) No.(8) Yes.7318(Question No. 900)9007318Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 16 September 2002:Did he recently circulate a colour brochure on his presentation entitled, “Managed Migration - Who does the Managing?”; if so, (a) what sum did the brochure cost to produce, (b) what was its print run and (c) to whom was it circulated.7318Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes, a colour booklet was produced by my Department containing an edited version of a presentation I made to senior government officials and academics in the United Kingdom on 16 August 2002. (a) The booklet cost $2,025.68 to produce.(b) To date 453 copies of the booklet have been printed. (c) The booklet was distributed to media at a press conference I held on Thursday 22 August 2002. It was subsequently circulated to all Members and Senators and is available to the public on my website <www.minister.immi.gov.au>. In addition, approximately 50 copies of the booklet were used for internal purposes.