2002-10-174013REPS790702002-10-17—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills7907R15907907Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Slipper:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Stephen Smith moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“while supporting the provisions of the Bill, the House:(1) condemns the Government for not adequately recognising the medical indemnity insurance problem and not acting quickly enough to address its adverse effects, including higher medical costs and reduced availability of services for Australians and their families;(2) recognises the ongoing problems in the general insurance, reinsurance and medical indemnity insurance industries and that confidence in those industries has been rocked by the collapse of HIH and the provisional liquidation of UMP/AMIL; and(3) calls on the Government to:(a) assume a leadership role in the co-ordination of reforms necessary to State and Territory laws with the aim of uniformity in tort law reforms;(b) consider putting in place a national scheme to ensure the long term care and rehabilitation needs of catastrophically injured Australians;(c) ask the ACCC to ensure that whatever changes occur in medical indemnity insurance, no unfair or unreasonable oncosts flow to patients for the cost of their health care;(d) play a more active role in bringing together medical defence organisations and representing them in negotiations with reinsurers;(e) support APRA with appropriate resources to fulfil a greater regulatory role in medical indemnity insurance; (f) require mandatory reporting of negligence claims and national data collection on health care negligence cases to help assess where major problem areas and issues lie;(g) promote the enactment of national “open disclosure” legislation, including provision that an apology made as part of an open disclosure process is inadmissible in an action for medical negligence; and(h) ensure that medical services provided by private hospitals, midwives, family planning clinics and aboriginal medical services are not disrupted due to a lack of appropriate and affordable insurance.”09:31:007907Grierson, Sharon, MPMs GRIERSON00AMPNewcastleALP00—I rise to support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Perth and, in doing so, to support the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002. The bill is a very necessary response to an unnecessary crisis. The legislation confirms the arrangements previously announced by the government to ensure the continuity of medical indemnity insurance coverage for medical practitioners who were insured with United Medical Protection Ltd, UMP, and for its wholly owned subsidiary, Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd, AMIL. The legislation provides for an appropriation out of consolidated revenue expressly for the purpose of payments in accordance with this bill, but it is also a reflection of the insurance and corporate governance crisis now facing this country.For both providers and users of health services, this legislation serves as a reminder of the extreme difficulties, pressures and risks they now face because of the collapse of the medical insurance firms. This is a crisis for patients and health customers, who have now lost confidence in the protection of their rights; a crisis in confidence for medical practitioners, who fear they can no longer provide medical care with the assurance that within the parameters of safe and responsible practice they will be personally indemnified; and a crisis in confidence for the Australian public in our insurance industry and in the ability of this government to regulate and monitor such important areas of commercial and medical practice. Prior to its provisional liquidation, UMP-AMIL was the largest medical insurer in Australia, providing coverage to over 60 per cent of medical practitioners nationally. In fact, in my state of New South Wales and in Queensland, the coverage by those two companies extended to 90 per cent of medical practitioners. Being such a large player in the medical indemnity insurance field, the collapse of UMP-AMIL had a very dramatic and distressing effect. The first major shock to the Australian insurance and reinsurance markets came when HIH Insurance filed for voluntary liquidation in March last year, but the shock waves caused by the HIH disaster are being felt today in the royal commission and in headlines detailing fraudulent activities and individual corruption. The causes of HIH's voluntary liquidation are currently being examined by the royal commission but, as well as the factors of unethical human behaviour, significant reasons did exist for their $800 million interim half-year loss. They have already been reported as overseas investment losses—something we now hear too much about—the high cost of the acquisition of FAI Insurance and the unprofitable premium rates. Whatever the reasons, the outcome was that in June 2001 UMP announced it had written off $30 million due to the collapse of HIH. It was caught up in that aftershock. The outcomes of the HIH Royal Commission may just create the shock this government needs to take on the responsibilities extended to it by the Australian public.The legislation we are dealing with today was, sadly, inevitable. The Labor opposition support this bill, but we remain highly critical of the continuing failures of this government to address medical indemnity problems generally. Medical indemnity is not just a problem for doctors but one that directly affects the availability and affordability of medical services to all Australians. Therefore, the need for a national response led by the Commonwealth remains acutely and urgently essential. The current crisis in medical indemnity insurance that this legislation responds to was publicly brought to a head by the financial difficulties experienced by UMP and the appointment of a provisional liquidator earlier this year.Problems with medical indemnity insurance have a much longer history in Australia. The warning signs were well and truly there for the Howard government to read from as far back as 1996. Instead, they have chosen to consistently ignore this problem until now, when it has reached crisis proportions. For example, in 1996, the Tito report—commissioned by the Keating government in 1991— provided a detailed review of the professional indemnity arrangements for health care professionals and made a number of key recommendations, none of which was acted on by the then new Howard government. After seven years in government, we still see no sense of urgency. The reverse is true. This government has consistently refused to be proactive on this issue, choosing instead to wait for a crisis to descend and threaten the availability and affordability of medical services to all Australians.On this side of the House, we have recognised the need for action in the area of medical indemnity insurance and identified areas needing urgent reform. In July 2001, we proposed a reform package for medical indemnity insurance. We have repeatedly called on the government to assume a leadership role in the coordination of reforms necessary across states and territory laws and we have highlighted the desirability of achieving uniformity in tort law reforms. Labor have also called on the government to act in those areas for which it has responsibility, including dealing with issues of quality and safety of medical care, the establishment of a scheme for the care of catastrophically injured Australians, and a heightened role for the ACCC in ensuring that patients do not unreasonably bear the increased costs of medical indemnity insurance. Labor welcome the general thrust of the two recent reports: the Ipp report issued in August this year, and the report commissioned by the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council called Responding to the medical indemnity crisis: anintegrated reform package, which was released in September this year. We encourage the government to respond to the very comprehensive recommendations made in those reports. There are solutions to this crisis and the solutions we are putting forward are consistent with our commitment to improvements to the quality and safety of medical care. We propose that the government should consider national legislation for open disclosure so that causes and prevention are the focus rather than blame—we see that with our transport and safety investigations; the real aim is to find out what went wrong and what happened, without the blame, so those things do not happen again—while at the same time respecting patients' rights and sensitivities. Mandatory reporting of negligence claims and maintaining a database of incidents would be a helpful solution. Other measures proposed by Labor include: developing with the profession national best clinical practice guidelines with ongoing review and monitoring processes that are enforced; better informed consent processes so that patients do know from their doctor what lies ahead; better information and management systems in health care institutions through the health care arrangements; and improving clinical experience in training. I draw to the attention of the House the Newcastle University model which is a clinical practice, particularly for general practice, for young trainee doctors. It is very much a clinical model with young students out in the workplace actually experiencing first-hand the job that they will be taking on. I will speak on that further.We also suggest that there need to be improved codes of practice, particularly in regard to informing patients of the risks and benefits of different treatment options. Also, identifying those practitioners who show poor performance and assisting with implementation of improvement programs—we actually see that in almost all professions but this has perhaps been overlooked. Thorough consideration should be given to a national scheme for those who are catastrophically injured and who require long-term intensive care and rehabilitation and it should be developed and agreed to with the Commonwealth and state governments and the medical profession and put in place. Sadly, those catastrophically injured Australians will now include some of our survivors of the Bali tragedy, which is so much on all of our minds here today. We also propose to ensure that medical defence and advocacy organisations are able to be inclusive but regulated through APRA with increased resourcing to APRA. We propose that such medical organisations fully disclose incidents and claims so that risk is better understood, better costed and therefore better managed. We support differential levels of cover dependent on outcomes, rewarding good practice that reflects quality and safe health care. We also propose the prevention of price exploitation, through the ACCC monitoring any flow-on cost to patients because of the increase in indemnity insurance.In stark contrast to Labor's position, the Howard government have been very reluctant to play a role addressing medical indemnity insurance problems and only took their first tentative steps following the federal election in November 2001. But now when the government have no choice but to act, some confusion and uncertainty still abound for the 32,000 medical practitioners and specialists insured by UMP and for the community at large. Whilst the government have finally agreed in this legislation to extend their guarantee until 31 December 2002, the long-term viability of UMP remains unknown at this time. The extent of the payments that will actually be required by the Commonwealth to meet these financial commitments also remains unknown. Yet the government continue to claim that they are financially responsible managers.Every member of this House will be aware of the human cost and social impact of the failure to avert this crisis—they will be seeing that in their electorates. In the Newcastle electorate that I represent there have been far too many local stories of the impact of this failure. I will take the opportunity to share those here to highlight the direct effect this problem has had on the availability and affordability of medical services for people of Newcastle and the Hunter region. The first example occurred in May of this year when the Family Planning Association health clinic in Newcastle was forced to temporarily close because it was unable to obtain professional indemnity insurance. This clinic provides more than 9,000 clinical consultations to women, men and young people in the Newcastle and Hunter regions each year. It works with primary and secondary schools, non-government schools, TAFEs and universities, youth refuges, Indigenous and ethnic services and parent groups. Throughout the Hunter, the FPA provides professional education for doctors, nurses, midwives, medical students, social workers, teachers and allied health workers. It provides a vital service in our community but it was forced to close—fortunately temporarily—in a bid to secure the necessary medical indemnity insurance. There is overwhelming community support for FPA Health in Newcastle as an essential community service. FPA was very fortunate to have eventually found new insurers and has reopened its health clinics. The breast clinic in Waratah is operating under the current federal government guarantee, extended now to 31 December 2002, but the breast clinic remains uncertain what will happen after that. Patients are contacting my office worried that their clinic, which treats some 100 clients, including men, at the centre each week, may not be there next year. They are worried that the staff who have supported them and with whom they share a bond of trust and empathy will no longer be there to continue their treatment and care. The current insurance paid by the breast clinic of $100,000 a year looks set to jump to $130,000 a year if the clinic leaves the crippled insurer UMP.The medical, nursing and radiography students at Newcastle University were excluded by insurers last year, forcing the university to self-insure its students so that they could continue their mode of operation which sees them working in the community. But it can only provide short-term cover, and we are absolutely desperately concerned should there ever be a claim against the university because we know that it would have great difficulty in paying a claim. This short-term cover will also expire on 31 December this year. The students need that insurance cover to be able to gain important practical experience in caring for sick and injured people. If they cannot get that experience the community will suffer, finding its young doctors and nurses with only a limited range of skills. Our university prides itself on the quality of our medical and nursing graduates. The practical skills of graduates are considered to be of a particularly high standard in the profession and they are certainly an integral part of the training at the university.The crisis in confidence among the medical profession is very real for GPs in Newcastle. Two Newcastle GPs have raised concerns about their inability to find insurance cover for the tail—that is, for previous but yet unknown or reported claims—despite having paid medical indemnity insurance premiums for decades. These GPs who are currently in the midst of legal proceedings have alerted me to the fact that their respective solicitors, formerly engaged by UMP on their behalf, have advised them that, notwithstanding the government's guarantee in this legislation, they may be personally liable for any settlement or judgment awarded in their respective cases. The amount being claimed in both cases is more than the total of the GP's personal assets. Both GPs are therefore under considerable stress. Both have indicated that they are seriously considering stopping practising because of this concern.GPs do work in stressful situations at the best of times. They do not need the added uncertainty and worry of inadequate medical indemnity insurance. One of these affected GPs stated that doctors need affordable medical indemnity and affordable cover for the insurance tail as well as some assurance of the financial security of alternative indemnity providers. No other insurers currently in the market will cover the tail. It appears that the only option is for the Commonwealth government to come to some arrangement regarding this. Patients do need affordable, accessible medical care provided by practitioners whose main concern is patient care rather than the fear of litigation. I must agree.A leading Newcastle neurosurgeon has publicly warned that Australia's medical indemnity crisis threatens to destroy the neurosurgery specialty and therefore jeopardises the care of people with serious brain injuries and spinal problems. This surgeon has practised in Newcastle for 27 years but will retire early because of an annual insurance premium with UMP of $110,000, which is clearly prohibitive. Obstetricians faced with spiralling insurance premiums are also passing the costs on to patients. A local obstetrician in Newcastle has stated that his premiums have spiralled from $45,000 to $94,000 per year and that he will have no choice but to pass on that cost to his patients, taking the average cost for care during pregnancy and delivery to around $1,000. Doctors in Newcastle, like those around the country, are absorbing more costs of practice. Many of them claim that they can no longer afford to provide bulk-billing or gap payment facilities. In Newcastle 76 per cent of GP services are now bulk-billed, which is a decrease from 79 per cent two years ago. Our ratio is actually better than many other areas in the country, and I congratulate our local GPs on their responsible approach and their willingness to respond to the needs of their local community. Those needs are quite considerable in Newcastle when you consider that in my electorate alone there are 40,000 constituents with health care cards. Newcastle also has the second highest disability pension take-up rate in the country. So any loss to bulk-billing hurts the families that I represent.More and more people cannot find GPs who will bulk-bill so more and more turn to the public health system. Public hospitals around Australia have seen an increase in the number of patients with less serious illnesses because people are finding it more difficult to obtain bulk-billing. Constituents are also telling me that they are now being asked to make up-front payments to specialists before surgical procedures are carried out. They say that the specialists are quite open about asking for an up-front payment in light of their increased medical indemnity insurance costs—$300 was one example.To add insult to injury, patients are being advised that they cannot claim this extra cost against their private health insurance. As one woman put it to me, she is paying for the demise of UMP every way she turns—as a patient, as a taxpayer and now as someone with private health insurance who is unable to claim for this additional expense. This activity will result in increased numbers of people who simply cannot afford to pay for the surgery they need. Individual patients in our community are suffering through reduced availability of medical services, loss of doctors from practices and higher prices for those who do stay in practice.The crisis is real and this legislation is necessary. But to resolve the medical indemnity situation properly and responsibly, action is required by both federal and state governments and changes are also required of our medical defence organisations, our doctors and our lawyers. Only a comprehensive approach to the medical indemnity issue, like that proposed by the opposition, will ensure the availability and affordability of high quality medical services to all Australians.Finally in supporting this legislation, I again remind the federal government that this is a time for governments who are prepared to govern, to protect what has made Australia the great nation it is. With the tragic events in Bali, we are all very grateful and very proud that we have a public health system that can respond so well to the immense need—and the need for medical care and attention at the moment is extreme. We are grateful that we do live in a civilised country where our health system, built on the back of public service and commitment, can perform so well in a crisis. We must do all we can to protect and preserve the social infrastructure that makes our country strong, and solving the medical indemnity crisis would be a good start. I support the legislation and the amendment.09:50:007911Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I might take up something that the member for Newcastle said. I was listening carefully to her speech in this debate on the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002 and she made the comment that it is time for governments who should be prepared to govern. I certainly agree with that, but I make the point that it is equally time for oppositions to act responsibly. In relation to the health area, I was quite distressed that the opposition rejected in the Senate the government's changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. All that does is hit low-income people. Not passing through the parliament the government's budget changes hurts them the most. It means that low-income people will not be able to access the most modern and newest drugs, but people who do have some resources behind them will have access to them. I open my contribution by recognising the work that the Assistant Treasurer has done in the very difficult area of public liability indemnity insurance. As members of parliament, we all know the difficulties that our constituents face, that patients face, that community organisations face and so on. Helen Coonan has done a very good job in coordinating and guiding the states through that very difficult minefield but also in relation to the matters referred to in the bill here before the parliament this morning. I also start from the position that I think you could quite successfully argue that Australia has the best health system in the world. If you travel overseas and see the conditions in other countries, when you come back to Australia you realise that we live in a mighty country, we do have a very good health system and the kinds of arguments that we hear are at the margins at best.It is also important to make the point that, in relation to the health system and how that might be managed, the Howard government—particularly Michael Wooldridge, the former health minister—has done a mighty job with the new innovations that come into the health system in this country. I refer to things like the initiatives with diabetes and with mental health, and the Tough on Drugs strategy. There is the antismoking campaign that the government has embarked on, and we can all see that resulting in benefits to the health of our community. There are the cancer issues, particularly with women. Probably one of the best achievements of all is the immunisation program, with Australian children now having the highest rate of immunisation in the world. It is a terrific outcome. We can be proud of what we have done in the area of health.The member for Newcastle claimed that the government has been reluctant to play a role in medical insurance, and that has an interesting connotation from a public policy point of view. If the member for Newcastle is suggesting on behalf of the opposition that, wherever a public liability insurance problem exists, the government should be involved and looking at it earlier rather than later, she really means that the government should be intervening across the gamut of business and the community. Clearly, the government is not going to do that. It is up to the people who practise to have prudent insurance, and the government will support that.The purpose of the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002, which we are discussing today, is to appropriate funds for payments in accordance with an indemnity agreement between the Commonwealth, UMP and Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd and to confirm the government's commitment relating to those organisations. Back in April the government announced it would provide a short-term indemnity to allow medical professionals to continue practising, following the decision to seek appointment of a provisional liquidator. We all know what a difficult time it was when that liquidation was announced. I know that doctors, particularly in my area of Townsville and Thuringowa, really appreciated the government stepping in and announcing that short-term indemnity. I suppose the reason for that was that UMP-AMIL was the largest provider of medical indemnity cover for medical practitioners in Australia. As I understand it, UMP-AMIL had around 30,000 members, and that made up about 60 per cent of doctors nationally.When this happened the effect on Queensland was profound, and that was because a higher level of cover was provided in Queensland by UMP than in virtually every other state. It was most concerning for Queensland doctors. The Commonwealth intervened to prevent large-scale disruption to the provision of health care services in Australia, and there was a knock-on effect in Townsville because already it had a shortage of doctors and specialised medical practitioners, such as anaesthetists and operating theatre nurses. It is well documented that it is not easy to entice medical professionals and specialists to work in regional Australia, and certainly Townsville is no exception. I noted the comments made by the member for Newcastle in relation to bulk-billing; she indicated that in Newcastle it was 76 per cent. One of the problems that we all face as legislators is that this particular figure is variable across the country. It is as low as 30 per cent in areas such as the electorate of Murray in northern Victoria; it is around 90 per cent in electorates such as Lindsay in Western Sydney; and it is 76 per cent in Newcastle. I suppose there are several reasons for that, but one is the amount of competition that floats around in particular communities. Where there seem to be higher levels of competition, we get higher rates of bulk-billing. But the problem for us as legislators is that, with those higher rates of bulk-billing, we get higher rates of consultation. We find that a patient in the western suburbs of Sydney is likely to see a doctor three times as often as a patient in rural Australia, and that is because of the churning effect that occurs. The country has to get a balance between the ability to bulk-bill and the ability to not overservice.On 1 May 2002 the Minister for Health and Ageing wrote to medical practitioners stating that the Commonwealth would guarantee to the provisional liquidator the obligation of UMP-AMIL to pay any amount properly payable in the period 29 April to 30 June 2002 for claims under a current or past policy. Many of the doctors and specialists working and living in North Queensland were already under some considerable pressure with high workloads and, when faced with the uncertainty created by the collapse of their medical indemnity fund, an additional heavy burden was placed on their shoulders. While it is true that there has been some political pressure with lobbying for a quick fix by the Commonwealth government, the majority of medical professionals in my electorate continued to practise throughout the crisis; they continued to meet the medical needs of and their obligations to their patients. I sincerely thank those doctors who were not spooked by some of the outrageous claims being made at the time. I well remember the front pages of the Townsville Bulletin where the president of the local AMA said that effectively the city would come to a halt because doctors would refuse to practise. Almost no doctors refused to practise, and I thank them for discharging their obligations to their patients.The politics of medicine is extraordinarily complex. In fact, I often find myself saying that the politics of health is more political than the politics of politics. We see many pressure groups and interest groups operating, many groups of doctors pulling against other groups of doctors, with the federal government and state governments sitting in the middle. I ask doctors and the professional groups to remember that they have to focus on outcomes for their customers, for their patients. That is what the name of the game is. We have seen lately that doctors' groups are considering operating politically and targeting certain federal electorates. They can do that all they like. The government will be resolute in dealing with good public policy, not the politics of doctors' organisations. The majority of medical professionals in North Queensland acknowledge the fact that the Commonwealth government moved quickly to address the problems associated with the collapse of UMP and they accepted the fact, following the letter from the Minister for Health and Ageing, that the Commonwealth had moved quickly to put in place a guarantee to the provisional liquidator while that very complex issue was being addressed. I would certainly like to record and acknowledge the highly ethical and professional stance taken by the majority of medical professionals in Townsville who continued working as normal despite the uncertainty of the medical indemnity crisis and calls from some quarters to just walk away from their responsibilities. On 31 May 2002 the Prime Minister announced that the Commonwealth would introduce a levy to fund any liability incurred by the Commonwealth under the indemnity agreement as a result of the extension of the guarantee on modified terms. The deed of indemnity between the Commonwealth, UMP, AMIL and the provisional liquidator of those groups forms a binding legal agreement between the entities to give effect to the arrangements announced by the government. The bill confirms the effect of the government's guarantee to UMP, AMIL and the provisional liquidator of those companies. The assurance made promptly to the medical profession by the Minister for Health and Ageing following the collapse of UMP is being kept, as it was always intended to be, by this legislation. The bill is also required to appropriate the funds to meet financial assistance commitments provided in the government's indemnity to the groups and the provisional liquidator of those companies. Part of the government's medical indemnity guarantee allows for the ordinary business of UMP and AMIL to continue. The government has announced that UMP members will be levied to pay for any Commonwealth liability that arises from the government's guarantee relating to claims and renewals from 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2002. I see that the member for Lowe is champing at the bit to make his contribution. He always makes a worthwhile contribution. I will make way for him. I certainly support the bill and encourage the House to pass it.83DLindsay, Peter, MPMr MURPHY—The member for Herbert has made an invaluable contribution. The bill we are debating today, the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002, is supported by both sides of the House. It is a bill of major significance for the people of Australia for it represents yet again the hypocrisy and the double standards that this government demonstrates in its contempt for the public interest on the one hand while seeking to rely on public support financially whenever it needs recourse to the public purse. Let us be blunt about the provisions of this bill. The bill exists because of the imminently foreseeable collapse in the medical indemnity insurance industry from future claims for harm from medical practitioners that has occurred over the past decade, that is, claims that are to occur for medical treatment of all kinds that have been performed by medical practitioners from about 1993 to the present time. The risk of a blow-out in claims and hence litigation and other overheads is well documented and understood. I have had the privilege of having been furnished a copy of the report by the Institute of Actuaries of Australia titled `Medical indemnity in Australia' presented at the 13th general insurance seminar from 25 to 28 November last year. This report was prepared by Trowbridge Consulting as part of the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu group. I refer to this report because it highlights the nature and extent of the crisis in which this government has placed the Australian taxpayer. In making this bill, the government again holds the Australian taxpayer to ransom. The government is saying to the Australian taxpayer, `Either you bankroll by government guarantee out of the taxpayer consolidated revenue or you won't have a medical industry or medical practitioners.' In short, if this bill is not passed, there will be an immediate and violent reduction in the number of medical practitioners. Doctors and other medical practitioners will walk; they will retire early and leave. This is already happening in the so-called high-risk medical specialist areas. The government must stop this exodus of doctors as a matter of urgency. As the purpose of the bill is to appropriate funds in order to ensure continuity of medical indemnity insurance cover for doctors insured with United Medical Protection and Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd, it has to be supported. However, I strongly support the second reading amendment moved by my colleague the shadow minister for health and ageing, the member for Perth, Mr Stephen Smith. The government has failed to recognise the medical indemnity insurance problem and failed to act quickly enough to address its adverse effects. As I reported to the House when I spoke on this issue on 21 August this year, a number of doctors working and living in my electorate of Lowe expressed their frustration at the government's refusal to recognise any of the long-term issues. Many of them are bewildered at the arrogant last-minute response the government has presented in place of any very real consideration. The consequence of this indolence has hit doctors and patients very hard. Doctors met with spiralling medical indemnity insurance costs have not been able to afford bulk-billing. Patients have been forced to pay higher consultation and service charges or, worse, they have no longer had convenient access to the medical services they need. Medical indemnity is an issue for all Australians, not just for doctors. Australians need a government committed to providing affordable medical services that all Australians have reasonable access to. Where a strong national response has been desperately needed, the government has had to be embarrassed into providing this stopgap solution. I take this opportunity to thank the many constituents who have written to me expressing their concern regarding this issue. I am indebted to one constituent in particular, an endocrine surgeon who practises in Sydney's west and who lives in my electorate. He referred to many of the health and legal issues related to this crisis—concerns that need urgent attention. Among other things, he expressed concern about some of the damaging aspects of the way doctors are pursued by personal injury lawyers and about some of the unfair aspects of negligence cases, for example:All complications are considered negligent. There is no surgical procedure that can be performed without complications in the 1 to 2 per cent range, and mostly in the 5 to 15 per cent range, and no reputable institution would report a zero complication rate. Reducing complications is possible but is a complex matter which is governed by a trade-off in resources available to deliver a service. The option of denying the 98 per cent of patients, who have no complications the benefit of a given procedure, is a real possibility in the current environment.I note that on 12 December 2001 United Medical Protection, UMP, announced substantial premium increases, with average increases of 52 per cent. However, in the fields of obstetrics and neurosurgery, premium increases were as high as 123 per cent. It is true that a major contributor to the premium increases was the HIH collapse, but another significant factor in premium increases was the known and fully anticipated increase in medical negligence claims against medical practitioners, in line with the actuarial report to which I have just referred.I am not an actuary, and the report is very technical and hence very difficult to read, as it is an in-house document. However, the report makes no recommendation regarding the course of action that is contained in the provisions here today; that is, bluntly, that the taxpayer should pay for this atrocity in medical indemnity insurance payouts. You may ask: what is an actuary; what is the role of an actuary? An actuary is a highly skilled and very highly paid mathematician with specialised skills and training in the calculation of risk. It is the actuary who is supposed to have the statistical, demographic and mathematical skills necessary to calculate with a degree of accuracy the level of present and future risk in any foreseeable course of action. It is from this complex risk analysis that premiums are calculated.So it astounds me, standing here this morning, to see in this case blow-outs in premium rises in the order of 123 per cent in one year. This figure indicates that the actuaries had absolutely no idea what they were doing; if it were otherwise, the variation would not be so great. In short, they are increases of an order of magnitude way off their calculated estimates. Why is this so? Is it indolence, incompetence or wilful blindness? Why should the public pay for these gross miscalculations? Where is the public interest represented in this matter? From the government, there is deafening silence to these questions. It equally astounds me that members of the actuarial profession who occupy the glass towers at the big end of town can sit there earning six- and seven-digit incomes and still fail to calculate with any degree of accuracy what has happened here with medical indemnity insurance.The government's mismanagement of this entire crisis has been embarrassing, to say the least. In April, when UMP announced it was seeking provisional liquidation, the government conceded that it had no plan to guarantee the ongoing provision of medical services and that it could not bind future governments. All the government could offer the thousands of GPs and specialists insured by UMP was confusion about its own position, not the leadership or certainty that were required. And why should any Australian be surprised? It happened with HIH, OneTel and Ansett. When will the government learn? When the inevitable, thoroughly foreseeable consequences occur, such as this medical indemnity crisis, what does the government do? It again goes running to the public purse—the consolidated revenue fund—and milks more money from the public purse. Moreover, even more shamefully, the government proposes yet another levy in addition to the Medicare levy in order to fund it. The public has an interest in protecting the consolidated revenue of Australian taxpayers, namely the consolidated revenue fund. That is what is at stake here. I have campaigned in this House to protect the public purse with regard to the scandalous conduct of the former senator Malcolm Arthur Colston. The government is doing nothing to make the Director of Public Prosecutions review the state of health of Dr Colston. I have a question to the Attorney-General outstanding on the Notice Paper, question 678. I have asked what change in Dr Colston's health is needed for the DPP to review his capacity to stand trial on 28 charges of defrauding the Commonwealth through travel rorts. I have also asked when was the last time the DPP received a medical report concerning Dr Colston's state of health, and what that report indicated.In this particular case—and we are talking about protecting Commonwealth revenue; if that is not in the public interest, I do not know what is—it is approaching 3½ years since the so-called independent medical experts deemed that Dr Colston only had months to live. We are talking about charges of defrauding the Commonwealth in relation to his travel, yet nothing happens with that case. The DPP is inert. The government is inert. I have been running a campaign on the Notice Paper and have been able to establish that Dr Colston only had a few months to live as far back as 3½ years ago. He has been flying around the countryside on his gold pass—and I have got the details in relation to that—yet the government and the DPP think he is not capable of standing trial. That is a scandal and something ought to be done about it.We are talking about public money. The Australian government holds that money in trust for Australians. It is not the proprietory moneys of the Commonwealth; the Commonwealth does not own the money. I say again: there is no recommendation by the Institute of Actuaries that this mess should be fixed by recourse to public revenue, yet this is exactly what the government is doing. It is a disgrace and nothing less than public theft.Many of the recommendations of the Institute of Actuaries are reflected in this bill. The provisions of minimising litigation, making amendments to tort law and the like are reflected in this bill. But the means of dealing with risks are not dealt with in the same way. The government has sought to pass on the cost of risk to the taxpayer, not the person bearing the risk. This is a gutless approach and places the financial burden on the long-suffering taxpayer. It is a gutless approach because it fails to acknowledge that Australians must choose the way in which they and medical practitioners conduct their practices and lives—they must change or accept higher premiums, even if that cost is prohibitive. If a medical procedure is so risky that it cannot safely be performed under any circumstance, then that is the truth of the matter.I want to say something about tort reform. It is the issue of tort law that has resulted in the differing views of what a tort is and how it is to be regarded. In modern times, the law of tort received renewed impetus from the neighbourhood doctrine in the famous case of Donoghue v. Stevenson with the immortal words of Lord Atkin:The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour ... You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.Lord Atkin then asked the rhetorical biblically based questions with regard to the manufacturer's liability, `Who is my neighbour?' and `To whom do I owe a duty of care?'This debate quickly degenerated into a battle of ideologies, represented by the two leading law lords, Lords Diplock and Denning: one line of argument based on sound moral reasoning—the law of justice; each according to their due and charity; bearing one's burdens—and the other based on flawed utilitarian ethics of the greatest good for the greatest number, irrespective of liability. The morally sound basis for tort law is that of moral duty based on reasonable foreseeability. However, the government has chosen yet again its utilitarian path, of which I have spoken at length on other bills in this House. This government has decided that he or she who has the capacity to pay, ought to pay—greater good for the greater number. That means the taxpayer must pay, no matter how outrageous the cost blow-outs in indemnity insurance and no matter how flawed the actuarial assessments of medical indemnity risk.Just like with the motor vehicle personal injury and comprehensive insurance industry, the home building industry and the travel industry, this government has failed again and again to heed the warnings, to alert the public and to take preventative action. As usual, it is the public interest that is raped. The taxpayer must forever dig deeply into his or her pocket when the big end of town selfishly and recklessly betray the trust given them in administering industries of critical importance, such as the insurance industry. Yet again, it is the very same big end of town awarding themselves fat payouts while their corporate empires crumble around them, ruining the lives of employees, shareholders and creditors. Moreover, it is this same government relying on the taxpayer to bankroll years of insurance mismanagement and flawed policy making in order to make the fat cats even fatter.I am compelled to revisit the utilitarian ethics of this government today. This government is not interested in justice. This government is not interested in justice or charity. Instead, it says that, when the actuaries get it hopelessly wrong, when there are monumental medical indemnity insurance premium blow-outs, when there is a pending liability claims catastrophe looming, yet again it is the taxpayer who must foot the bill.This is the government that has fattened many lambs for the kill by selling public assets that were lucrative and profitable, and that could have continued returning vast revenues to the public purse and unburdening taxpayers of their tax liability. This is the government that has sold its soul to the corporate world, which increasingly demonstrates its poor corporate citizenship as indicated by the likes of HIH, OneTel, any of the four major Australian banks and the media tycoons—and I was speaking about that last week on the media ownership bill. I notice the minister responsible in this chamber, the Minister for Science, is at the table this morning. I think it is a national disgrace that you, Minister, would allow a media tycoon in Australia to own newspapers, television stations and radio stations in the one market. That is contrary to the public interest; that is a great threat to our democracy. That is consistent with this bill today. These are the corporations which, when they make profits, greedily hold on to those profits for themselves, demonstrating a contempt for the public interest. Yet, when these corporations flounder, they expect the taxpayer to bail them out and allow them to live for another day.The public interest deserves better than this. All of us elected to this House should only have one consideration when we are speaking or doing anything to represent the people who elected us to this chamber—and that is to defend and protect the public interest. This expectation of a publicly funded levy to support the failing medical indemnity industry is a colossal farce. The responsibility on the insurance industry is clear: get the figures right, make the policy recommendations earlier and earn the fantastic sums of money you get for currently getting it so wrong. If the so-called professionals cannot get their sums and calculations right, as they have in this case, the industry should be nationalised and these assets placed back in public hands.This is yet another example of the government's flagrant disregard for the public interest—the government only looks after those who look after it. We are all elected to this House to represent everyone, even those people who did not vote for us—and I know that well, being in a marginal seat like Lowe. To the best of my ability, I represent everyone who comes through my door, sends me an email or a fax, gets on the telephone or speaks to one of my staff members. I do not only look after the people who look after me. The government should examine its conscience. I certainly hope that when that media ownership bill gets to the Senate its gets defeated because, as I said in my contribution here this morning, that is the greatest threat to this country. 10:23:007918Panopoulos, Sophie, MPMs PANOPOULOS00AMUIndiLP10—I rise this morning with great pleasure to support the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance— Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002. Before addressing the bill specifically, I would like to make some comments about the unfortunate contribution that the member for Lowe has made to the debate on this bill. Excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for feeling at times confused about what the actual concerns were that the member for Lowe was addressing. In attempting to speak to this bill, he seemed more obsessed with his former Labor colleague the recalcitrant former senator Mal Colston than addressing the serious issue of a viable medical indemnity system. He also spoke about the selling of public assets. It was his party in government that signed and said they would not sell an institution that many Australians thought was a great institution— the Commonwealth Bank. It was the member for Lowe's government that sold it, and he needs to be reminded of it. He also made some very passionate statements that this government has sold its soul. Looking back through our recent political history, I remember the greatest shame I felt was when his former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, sold his soul to Indonesia. He talks about this government not looking after the interests of ordinary Australians, yet it is the Labor Party that sacrifices the interests of ordinary Australian workers in favour of special deals with increasingly irrelevant, Labor-supporting union organisations.This is a very important bill and it seeks to appropriate funds for payments in accordance with an indemnity agreement between the government and the United Medical Protection Ltd group. The government's indemnity agreement is also confirmed within the provisions of this bill. The area of medical indemnity is a complex area that requires careful thought and planning. The bill largely deals with the issues of providing assistance to UMP and its subsidiary, Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd, though the current climate of public liability insurance and its prominence in public debate in Australia need to be investigated when looking at the provisions of this bill for the medical industry. The policy mechanisms impacting upon medical indemnity costs and the medical indemnity agreement are complex and, for that reason, do require close examination. Indeed, the present issue of increasing premium costs for those in the medical industry is an issue affecting many other industries as people come to terms with the effects of this issue on the wider community.Medical indemnity is slightly different from other types of insurance. Through the manner in which it is currently implemented, medical indemnity is neither insurance cover nor provided by insurance companies. Doctors are normally covered by discretionary indemnity, which is unlike an insurance company that imposes a contractual obligation. This has important ramifications for the medical profession and the wider community. When thinking about medical indemnity today we need to explore to what extent medical indemnity providers should operate within a regulated environment, as is the case with general insurers. If this is to be the case, there needs to be an effective framework which highlights the best possible implementation of medical indemnity cover. The medical indemnity insurance industry needs to be a sustainable commercial product to counter the serious problems emerging within this policy area. There is no doubt that medical indemnity insurance is a serious issue affecting many Australians, particularly those residing in rural and regional areas where there are fewer GPs and fewer specialists. Any impact on the availability of medical services is of significant concern to me, as the federal representative of a country electorate. As the Prime Minister readily acknowledged, the federal government is working urgently to address the medical indemnity agreement issue, both in the immediate and in the longer term, and has already taken a number of key, positive steps. The federal government is committed to ensuring that all doctors can continue to deliver necessary health and medical services right across Australia. On 31 May this year, the Prime Minister announced a number of longer term measures to ensure the viability of medical indemnity insurance and provide medical practitioners with the certainty they need to continue to practise. Senator Kay Patterson, the Minister for Health and Ageing, wrote to doctors and provided a copy of the Prime Minister's statement of 31 May.The Commonwealth is working with the states and territories to ensure that state and territory legislation does not impede the development of a commercially based medical indemnity market. Strategies are being developed to ensure that premiums are affordable for doctors undertaking high-risk specialties. The Commonwealth is also developing mechanisms to give insurers greater certainty in assessing the size of likely claims, pricing risk and setting premiums. These include tort law reforms aimed at containing the cost of claims and reducing the need for litigation. The steps taken thus far in the medical indemnity agreement debate by the Howard government are steps in the right direction.The debate surrounding medical indemnity insurance and the agreement brokered between the Commonwealth and the industry has not been helped by the disappointing attempts by the Labor Party to try and score political points out of this difficult situation. The member for Perth has deliberately tried to mount a scare campaign at the expense of peace of mind of patients. On 6 August this year Stephen Smith called for the government guarantee to be extended immediately, despite the fact that it still had five months to run and the provisional liquidator of UMP-AMIL was not even requesting an extension. The current arrangement is that the government guarantee is in place until 31 December 2002, after which the government firmly believes that a comprehensive framework of measures will be in place to allay many of the concerns that the public and the health industry hold. This bill does confirm the commitment of the government heralded under the indemnity agreement.To understand the present situation it is necessary to detail the processes that went before the agreement coming to fruition. On 29 April this year, the government agreed to provide indemnity to the UMP group in the short term to allow the group to continue to practise. Soon after, all doctors were contacted by the minister for health and told that the government was guaranteeing the provisional liquidator the responsibilities of UMP to pay for claims under current policy in the period 29 April to 30 June 2002. Agreements for the payment of some claims were discussed on 22 May this year and the provisional liquidator sought approval in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the arrangements were approved on 24 May 2002 and the government's extension to 31 December 2002 agreed upon.Through this bill it is proposed that an indemnity deed agreed upon by the Commonwealth, UMP and the provisional liquidator will be formally entered into and the bill will formally enact the announcements of the government affecting the parties. Therefore, the agreements on medical indemnity detailed in this bill are legally binding on their own and stand alone from this bill. Through the provisions contained in this very important bill and the agreement entered into by the Commonwealth government, doctors have been able to continue to provide medical services as the government and others in the industry confront this issue from a long-term perspective.It was the federal government's announcement of measures to address the difficulties faced in the medical indemnity insurance industry that allowed medical practitioners the ability to continue practising. The bill continues this agreement and enforces the appropriation of funds for payments relating to the indemnity agreement entered into between the government and UMP-AMIL. This is necessary for the future wellbeing of the industry, and the sensible measures announced by the government—and contained in this bill—should be welcomed by all parties and should not be used as a political football by those on the other side. It is important to note that the difficulties encountered within the medical indemnity insurance industry are not difficulties of this government's making. This problem, like many others, has been the product of many disparate forces within the general public and professional liability insurance markets that have gradually held important implications for the medical industry. The demise of HIH and the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, which constituted the largest insurance event in history, are the backdrop of this current debate involving medical indemnity insurance. It is an important debate, one which affects all of us in some way. The measures undertaken by the government to address the issues are to be welcomed, as are the provisions contained in the bill.Providing protection for doctors whilst this guarantee is in place is necessary for the continuing provision of health care services to the community. The underlying issues confronting UMP and AMIL hold important consequences for the entire medical indemnity insurance market. As said by so many others before me, this is a complex area, and the government has endeavoured to ensure the interests of medical practitioners and patients are adequately recognised. Through confirming the commitments of the government and through the appropriation of funds for payments, this bill promotes the security and viability of the medical indemnity insurance industry. I commend this very important bill to the House.10:34:007920Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I rise to support the amendment that has been moved by the member for Perth, especially part (2) of that amendment, which urges the House to recognise the ongoing problems in the general insurance, reinsurance and medical indemnity insurance industries and that confidence in those industries has been rocked by the collapse of HIH. Indeed, it is not possible to look at insurance arrangements in Australia today without reflecting on the collapse of HIH. As a parliament, we must learn the lessons of this experience and devise better laws and practices for the future.So far in the public debate most of the focus has been on the role of Rodney Adler and Ray Williams in the collapse of HIH. While they are culpable and should be punished under the law, the role of Goldman Sachs Australia has been just as reprehensible. If Goldman Sachs had been honest and ethical in its dealings with HIH and FIA, Australia today would not be experiencing a crisis in the insurance industry. This is a terrible story of corporate greed and deceit, and the responsibility of Goldman Sachs and its Australian managing director, Malcolm Turnbull.Turnbull's involvement with FAI started on Christmas Eve 1997, when he and Adler agreed to pursue what they called `Project Firelight', a joint venture to buy out, restructure and then refloat FAI, with an expected return on their investment of 250 per cent over three years. At this meeting, Adler said that he thought the deal would turn him into a billionaire, and of course Turnbull wanted a slice of the pie. From the beginning, this was an insider's job. Adler and Turnbull had been business partners and family friends since the 1980s, visiting each other's homes and investing in each other's business ventures. Both were prominent members of the New South Wales Liberal Party.Throughout the first half of 1998, Turnbull was able to access price sensitive confidential information about FAI as he looked at the Firelight numbers. He got to know more about the company than its own board of directors, including information about its bad reinsurance contracts and other financial problems. At this point, he failed to comply with the policy of Goldman Sachs for receiving confidential information and for avoiding conflicts of interest—clear breaches of the company's code of conduct. Perhaps this is why he had to constantly reassure his head office in New York about the probity of the deal and Adler's involvement. Other aspects of the project were tainted. In May 1998, Adler sought to involve Jeffrey Pokross from New York in the privatisation deal, wining and dining him across Sydney. Back home, however, Pokross was a prominent part of the Bonanno crime syndicate—not the best credentials for the Adler-Turnbull joint venture. Pokross is currently in hiding in the US as part of a witness protection scheme. The precise nature of his association with Malcolm Turnbull is not known. Certainly, Pokross was close to Adler, who in turn was close to Turnbull.Finally, on 7 September—after nine months of detailed scrutiny of FAI's financial position—Turnbull advised Goldman Sachs New York that the project was being abandoned. As he wrote in the following memo:FAI has provided us with a significant amount of additional information—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to in any way impede the member raising matters, other than those which are appropriate to be raised, but I would seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether or not, firstly, the issues that are being raised are relevant to the matters under debate in this bill and, secondly, there is a potential for sub judice in relation to inquiries that are presently afoot.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—It is an inquiry by the executive, Philip; you know that.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—I am simply asking for a ruling on those matters. I think it is appropriate that the matters at least be addressed.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! On the first matter of relevance, I am sure that the honourable member for Werriwa is aware of the requirement for him to relate his matters to the bill or the second reading amendment before us. The other aspect about sub judice is difficult. Whilst royal commissions and other such inquiries do not have judicial authority, the point is that care should be taken in the way in which matters which might unduly influence the conduct of those inquiries are presented to the House. I would ask the honourable member for Werriwa to keep that in mind and I indicate to the minister that I will be listening carefully to the remaining contribution.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I am speaking in support of the second reading amendment which notes ongoing problems in the insurance industry, rocked by the collapse of HIH. It is in support of that amendment that I make these comments. I was referring to the memo of 7 September. It states:FAI has provided us with a significant amount of additional information, including revised five-year forecasts by product line; information on loan and real estate portfolios including appropriate write-downs; and information on the coal company. We estimate that the true net assets of FAI (that is, after write-downs and unwinding of reinsurance contracts) is approximately $20 million, compared with a stated book value of $220 million. We appreciate you taking the time to come to Australia to have a closer look at this. Hopefully, next time we bring you out here we will have more success.So there was no doubt that Turnbull knew about the true value of FAI. He had been through an extensive due diligence process and arrived at a value of just $20 million, prompting him to abandon the privatisation joint venture. If FAI had been worth its publicly declared value then the project would have proceeded.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—I simply make the point that I do not know enough about the inquiry that is being conducted.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—You do not understand the second reading amendment.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—I do understand the second reading amendment and how it is being used to introduce these matters. But I go to the question about which the royal commission may have to make findings. It seems to me that the sorts of issues you are traducing and the conclusions you are drawing are matters about which the commission is hearing evidence. It may have heard other material that would be germane to the same matter and might come to quite different conclusions. The whole purpose of sub judice is to prevent these matters being prejudged and, it seems to me, that you are presenting material in a way—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—It is an inquiry by the executive established by your government. 0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—It is an inquiry to get to the bottom of these issues and to ensure that they are addressed in a proper way where all the relevant information before the tribunal will be considered.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The clearest precedent for this is an indication by former Speaker Snedden about the relationship of the sub judice rule to a royal commission. I am comforted by the fact that, in my brief comments to the earlier point of order, the relevance is that the judgment has to be made about whether in fact the contribution that is being made to the debate would unnecessarily prejudice the thinking of the royal commission. It was acknowledged by Speaker Snedden that royal commissioners give due weight only to the evidence given before them. But again the comment has been made by the member for Werriwa that, because it is not a judicial inquiry but something set up by the executive, that means it is outside sub judice. That is not necessarily the case. I therefore have to listen carefully to the way in which the member for Werriwa is constructing his case.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—All of this material has been in newspapers. The suggestion that the parliament cannot debate matters which have been published in newspapers is absolutely absurd. Turnbull knew exactly what was going on. At one stage, Goldman Sachs considered investing $70 million in Project Firelight. The company's timesheets show that it invested more than 650 hours of staff time in the project. In August 1998 Turnbull personally inspected the FAI loan book and became aware of its extensive loan write-downs valued at up to $120 million. This was a serious venture and it produced a serious financial assessment of the true value of FAI. This is what Turnbull told the royal commission at page 6437 of evidence:A. Certainly in the context of the structure we were contemplating, which involved the disposition of the so-called non-core assets in a short time frame, we assumed ... that the reasonable values were less than those in the balance sheet, certainly.Counsel assisting the commission asked:Q. Is it correct that you understood as at 7 September 1998, that the more nonpublic information about FAI which was obtained in August 1998, the worse the company's financial status appeared to Goldman Sachs?The answer was:A. Certainly the work that we had done in the course of 1998 left us with the impression that the level of write-downs, for example, would be greater than we would have initially anticipated.At the end of the process one problem remained: Turnbull had just spent nine months of time and expense on Project Firelight and had come up with nothing other than an embarrassing memo to head office. He now turned to his old mate Adler to recover his expenses and reputation. As Turnbull admitted to the commission, as soon as Project Firelight fell over he and Adler `talked about other options and obviously one of those options we talked about was a sale process'. This discussion took place at Adler's home on 12 September, just five days after the privatisation plan had been abandoned. Two days later Adler wrote to FAI's non-executive directors advising them that he had, subject to board approval, appointed Turnbull and Goldman Sachs as the company's financial advisers. Turnbull was to review all options `ranging from raising additional equity to outright sale'. He had, in Adler's words, `accepted the mandate with thanks and relish'.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The matter being debated by the member is not relevant to the legislation. I do not mind him raising the stuff but I would like him to do it in the appropriate way. Could I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the terms of the amendment—they are specifically related to medical insurance and nothing else.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Werriwa will keep his comments relevant to the legislation and the second reading amendment before us.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I speak in support of the second reading amendment and its mention of HIH. Incredibly, no mention was made of Turnbull's earlier association with FAI and the obvious conflict of interest involved. Someone who, just seven days earlier, had decided that FAI was not worth buying into was now being asked to facilitate new equity partners or even a full sale. Someone who had just valued the company at a fraction of its stated book value, someone who knew about its bad reinsurance contracts and loan write-downs, was now being asked to tell other investors that it was a good buy for the future. Even with this limited knowledge, some FAI directors had strong reservations about Turnbull's appointment. As Peter O'Connell told the HIH Royal Commission in May: Goldman Sachs were a relatively small shop in Australia and my observation at that meeting was shouldn't we use an international brand because the buyer might be offshore. There were people with more resources than Goldman Sachs who had the same level of connection.When the board finally considered the matter, O'Connell advocated the use of executives at JP Morgan and Merill Lynch but was rolled by Adler in favour of Turnbull. O'Connell went on to tell the royal commission that he had no knowledge of GSA's prior involvement with the buy-out scheme or the existence of the Turnbull memo. If he had, he said:I have no doubt that any of the directors of FAI would refer that on (to ASIC) because that is our duty—9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs Gambaro—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am here to speak on the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002 and I ask that you bring the member for Werriwa back to the bill, because that is what we are here for.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—In seeking to clarify the requirement for relevance based on the use of a second reading amendment, it is in order to raise the fact that the second reading amendment relates to a principal piece of legislation. The contributions to the debate, whilst referring to the second reading amendment, should also link back to the way in which the legislation before the House would be relevant to the point which is being raised in the second reading amendment. To the extent that this is a bill about medical indemnity insurance and there has been the mention of the collapse of a general insurance company, those two matters should still be related in members' contributions.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am supporting the second reading amendment, which urges the House to recognise the ongoing problems in the general insurance industry rocked by the collapse of HIH. We are being urged to recognise these problems and reflect on them. It is entirely appropriate for members to do so.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance to the legislation and the amendment. The member, in quoting why he claims to be relevant, forgot to go on and make the point that you made in your correction. I would like you to bring him back to the issue.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for Werriwa.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—The FAI Chairman John Landerer told the royal commission that he did not know of Turnbull's earlier role, and, if he had, he would not have appointed him. He described GSA's involvement as `a terrible conflict of interest'. A third director, Geoff Hill, said that he now regards Turnbull's appointment as improper. He said:You had Goldman Sachs and Mr Adler spending six months evaluating a takeover and arriving at the conclusion, in Goldman Sach's case, that it was not worth doing on information that nobody else had. On the other hand, you had HIH utilising apparently public information and making a takeover. That is not what I consider to be a level playing field. (This would have been of) considerable concern to ASIC. 0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened very carefully to the ruling that you made and I have listened to the further comments since you made that ruling. The ruling was very clear that the use of the amendment needed to be related to the legislation, which dealt with medical insurance. While the general terms of the matters being raised may be relevant to general insurance, the fact is that that has not yet been related in any way to the legislation before us. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your ruling invited the speaker to make that link. That linkage has not been made in any of the further comments. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Paragraph (2) of the second reading amendment reads:(2) recognises the ongoing problems in the general insurance, reinsurance and medical indemnity insurance industries and that confidence in those industries has been rocked by the collapse of HIH and the provisional liquidation of UMP/AMIL ...The points that have been put to me in the points of order, and the fact of relevance, suggest that this paragraph cannot be debated in isolation by reference to the collapse of one general insurance company. Whilst I would allow such matters to be raised, they still have to be linked to relevant matters in the legislation.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—It is a well-known fact that both FAI and HIH were medical insurers. So how can we be talking about the UMP problems unless we are talking about one of the causes of the collapse? They were medical insurers. That is the point. O'Connell, Landerer and Hill are right. Adler and Turnbull put together an insider's job. At no stage did they declare their conflict of interest to the FAI board. Their primary concern was to salvage something from the Firelight exercise.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Mitchell with a further point of order, or is it the same point of order?SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—It is inviting you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to assist me in clarifying your earlier statements. You have been pretty precise in saying this paragraph needs to be linked with the general concept of medical insurance, and I am still waiting for that link to be made.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Mitchell will resume his seat. I thought the member for Werriwa had acknowledged my latest ruling and had attempted to commence his remarks by an interrelation between the earlier remarks that he had made and the points that are before us in the legislation.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—A feeble attempt.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Feeble? You're the filibuster. You disgracefully tried to filibuster in this House on stem cell research—and now you are doing it again on points of order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Werriwa will ignore the interjections.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Turnbull, in particular, was playing both sides of the field. He knew that FAI was a lemon yet he was determined to ignore his inside information and collect an adviser's fee for on-selling the company. He put his financial interests ahead of any sense of personal responsibility or business ethics. In practice, Turnbull did not have to work very hard for his money. At the time of the appointment of Goldman Sachs on 14 September, Adler was already in negotiations with HIH. He wrote to Turnbull saying, `I do not wish your engagement letter and that potential proposal to be confused.' In a moment of candour at the royal commission, Turnbull himself asked the obvious question: why pay an investment banker to find a bidder when one has just walked in off the street? This was not a proper commercial engagement; it was compensation for the failed Firelight project. Turnbull not only collected a bogus fee but also helped his mate Adler to sell out of FAI at an inflated price. This was their greedy little scam: to keep the FAI board in the dark, to ensure that Turnbull recovered his expenses plus more and to allow Adler to make a hefty profit. They might have got away with it, except for one problem: they sold the company to HIH. The HIH bid for FAI began on 23 September.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Mr Deputy Speaker—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—It is another filibuster expert.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Werriwa will resume his seat. Does the honourable member for Sturt have a point of order?9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been following this debate and I have noticed a number of rulings that you have given with respect to relevance and the sub judice principle. I have a point of order which relates to the following concept: is it possible under the rulings that you have made, for an amendment to be made to a second reading motion—a second reading amendment—that is itself irrelevant to the bill and, under the rubric of that irrelevant amendment, for any speech to be given on that amendment on any subject even if it has no bearing whatsoever on the original bill? Is that the effect of your rulings, Mr Deputy Speaker? 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. I am not in a position to make a ruling on the acceptance of the second reading amendment, because I was not in the chair, but I believe there is nothing in the second reading amendment that goes outside the usual rules for such second reading amendments. My rulings have been an attempt to adjudicate on points of order that are put before me. The honourable member for Werriwa's time has expired.10:54:007925Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I want to follow the member for Werriwa's contribution. (Quorum formed) I appreciate the opportunity to finally speak. After the appalling contribution by the member for Werriwa, who not once mentioned the words `medical indemnity', I am pleased to be here today to speak on what we are here to speak about—the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002. The objective of this bill is to appropriate funds for payments in accordance with an indemnity agreement between the Commonwealth and United Medical Protection Ltd-Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd—hereafter referred to as UMP-AMIL.On 29 April this year UMP-AMIL announced that they would seek via the courts to appoint a provisional liquidator. For around five years, they had weathered the ebbs and flows that characterised the insurance industry since 1994. From UMP's beginnings as the New South Wales Medical Defence Union in 1997, they pursued an aggressive market growth strategy. By 2002, they were the largest national medical insurer in this country. The impact of their demise on medical practitioners was felt most strongly in New South Wales and Queensland where around 90 per cent of medical practitioners were insured with UMP-AMIL.A survey at the time by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and JP Morgan found that the insurance industry had a number of changes over the seven years from 1993 to 2000. Domestic insurance increased at a steady rate and statutory insurance, which includes third-party CTP and workers compensation, also increased on average over this period. However, commercial insurance, which includes professional indemnity, fell in at least four of the years under consideration from the 1994 period. While professional indemnity insurance increased by six per cent in 1994, it fell by two per cent, nine per cent and 18 per cent in the following three years to 1998. Between 1999 and 2001, professional indemnity insurance showed increases of two per cent, 12 per cent and 23 per cent respectively. It is estimated that this insurance will rise by 20 per cent this year.According to the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and JP Morgan survey, these figures demonstrate the fierce competition within an oversupplied commercial insurance market in the late 1990s. The insurance industry resolved therefore to improve its risk-reward position, as this was the most significant factor in the increase in premiums over this period. The survey also notes that, while the increases in premiums in the late 1990s were substantial, average commercial premiums were below the real level paid in 1993.There would be few who would not argue that the events of September 11 last year had an instant and lasting impact on the global insurance industry. Not only was it the most devastating terrorist attack of our times but also it levied pressure on the insurance industry, initiating a major review of risk-reward positions and stretching resources to unbelievable levels. Entire industries from travel to tourism were affected. In the United States alone, airlines were grounded from a combined slump in tourism and demand for air travel coupled with new pressures on insurance premiums. The result was increased premiums in an insurance industry that was already starting to show cracks in its veneer, particularly since the 1980s and the rise in the number of litigious claims.On 3 May, the provisional liquidator was appointed and indicated that the priorities would be to determine whether the companies were solvent and had the ability to continue trading. In a statement issued by the Prime Minister on 31 May, the coalition government made public further details of the government's response to those difficulties being experienced in the medical indemnity insurance market. The government put in place temporary arrangements to avert a disruption in medical services when UMP-AMIL was put into provisional liquidation. At the time of the Prime Minister's announcement, further enhancements to the guarantee were provided. The Prime Minister also announced proposals for dealing with unfunded incurred but not reported liabilities, known as IBNRs. These are a particular problem for UMP-AMIL. By dealing with these liabilities, the government paved the way for the development of commercially sustainable medical indemnity insurance arrangements. Key elements of the government's strategy for ensuring that medical indemnity insurance is made a viable commercial product have been identified. These difficulties highlighted a number of serious problems in the market for medical indemnity insurance, and the government did not step away from these problems. We tried to address them. At that stage, the existing government guarantee covered payments only for claims finalised from 29 April to 30 June 2002 and incidents that occurred between 29 April and 30 June 2002. The government offered a guarantee to the provisional liquidator of UMP-AMIL to enable him to conduct the following procedures. It enabled him to meet claims in the period from 29 April to 31 December, to renew policies on claims made for the period to 31 December 2002 and continue to meet claims that were notified before 29 April 2002 and properly payable in the period of 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2002. This is an extension of the existing guarantee accepted by the New South Wales Supreme Court recently.The coalition government indicated it would establish a scheme to fund the current IBNRs. Detail of the scheme included the Commonwealth assuming liability for all unreported incidents that occurred under claims-incurred policies where there was not adequate provisioning for these liabilities, and that it would recoup this liability from members of relevant MDOs over an extended period to spread payments and make them affordable. All MDOs will be required to participate to the extent of their unfunded IBNRs. These amounts will be the subject of independent actuarial assessment, and the scheme will be funded by a levy on medical practitioners in those MDOs with unfunded IBNRs. Medical practitioners who belong to an MDO which has fully provisioned for its IBNRs will not be subject to the levy. Details of the levy arrangements will be developed in consultation with medical practitioners and the MDOs, with the aim that they will be affordable and that the amounts will be funded over a period of five years. Medical practitioners will also be required to contribute to the funding of unfunded IBNRs in their MDOs. The scheme will also fund the extension of the guarantee to be provided to the provisional liquidator of UMP-AMIL, as I said, to enable claims against practitioners to be paid.The government recognises that, unless medical indemnity insurance can be made a viable commercial product, practitioners will not have the certainty they need to continue practising. This means there are a large number of serious problems that have to be fixed. The government has identified a number of proposals and has said it would address these problems. The key elements of those proposals are as follows. It is important in seeking the removal of New South Wales legislation provisions that impede the development of a commercially based medical indemnity market by capping premiums for certain high-risk specialties. It is also important in developing arrangements, including consideration of direct financial support, to ensure premium affordability for doctors undertaking higher risk specialties, and they include the areas of neurology and obstetrics.Another key element is working with the states to develop a suite of mechanisms that will give insurers greater certainty in calculating the size of likely claims and assist in pricing risk and setting affordable premiums. That will include substantial tort law reform to contain the cost of claims, reduce the need for litigation and encourage structured settlements rather than lump settlements; a range of measures to deal with the more serious, high-cost claims; improved claim management; and better clinical risk assessment. Also, improving transparency in the financial reporting of MDOs and bringing all of the insurance business of MDOs into the prudential framework for general insurers will be very important. As the Prime Minister stated on 31 May, it is the government's firm intention that a new comprehensive framework of measures be in place before 31 December 2002. The bill before us today is a demonstration of that commitment. As a government we are committed to all Australians having access to a strong, secure, world-class health care system that will care for all Australians no matter what their needs or means. The Howard government are committed to a viable and universally publicly funded health system—Medicare. The coalition are committed to improving the health outcomes of all Australians, including those living in rural, regional and remote areas. Over this financial year, 2002-03, the Health portfolio will receive over $30 billion in budget funding.In Labor's last year in government, it spent only $18 billion on the Health portfolio. The coalition has continued to reform the Australian health system since coming to office in 1996. In government, Labor was bereft of ideas on how to tackle the challenges of new technologies, changing demographics and their impact on the health of all Australians. Labor had three health ministers between 1993 and 1996, none of whom were dedicated to, or capable of, genuine reform of the Australian health system. In contrast, the coalition remains committed to a high-quality health care system for all and to ensuring that access and freedom of choice are provided by a strong private sector.The coalition also acknowledges the importance of ensuring that those Australians living in outer metropolitan, regional and remote parts of this country have access to similar standards of health services as those who live in the city. By promoting preventive health initiatives, introducing the use of new technology into the health system and through the provision of generous health and medical research funding, the coalition is ensuring that all Australians experience the best of health. I ask the House to support this bill.11:10:007927Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00— There has been a lot said about matters relating to medical indemnity. We had a crisis earlier this year—in fact, it has been around for a number of years—and the government have failed to address those issues. We have heard many different speeches from government members on the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002. They have spoken about what it all means and the technicalities involved. Very few have addressed the real cause; that is, the government's failure to address some of the issues for which they are responsible.In the member for Werriwa's earlier contribution he identified some of the key problems of HIH, which led to the failure of UMP. It was an important contribution which should be on the public record. It outlines to government the history of this matter and what is behind the actual failure of UMP. It is not just the simplistic view that it did not work but identifies who the people were, the relationships and so forth. I am very disappointed that the government and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, along with a number of other members, prevented the member for Werriwa from completing his contribution.I also want to turn my attention to the history surrounding this matter. I remind people who might read this speech or hear it broadcast that this matter has a long history. It is not something that just cropped up, surprised government and left it with very little warning. As early as November 2000, UMP, at its annual general meeting, stated that an extra year's subscription would be required, spread over five years, and that premiums would increase by eight per cent. UMP was highlighting some of the problems as early as a couple of years ago. Following the voluntary liquidation of HIH, the Chief Executive of UMP put together a worst-case scenario. It did not take into account the worst-case scenario, but it met its requirements in terms of APRA and solvency requirements. By June 2001, UMP had written off $30 million due to the collapse of HIH. When we look back at the events, we see that a number of people were involved with HIH and played a key role in these events. It is extremely important that those things are noted and recorded here. The real problem started in November 2001 when UMP had not recorded approximately $455 million of incurred but not yet reported claims, the IBNRs, which it was expected it would have to pay over 20 years. I heard the member for Lowe's very fine contribution. He pointed out that actuaries—these are highly paid, skilled and intelligent people—sit down and work through these finer points and figures and can tell you what your incurred debts will be, your liability into the future. Obviously, it was not done in this case and there were obviously instances of mismanagement involved. UMP announced substantial premium increases, with average increases of around 52 per cent. There would be increases for specialists such as obstetricians and neurosurgeons ranging from 36 per cent to 123 per cent. The warning bells were ringing, the red lights were flashing, the phones were going off in the Prime Minister's office and in the Minister for Health and Ageing's office—or so you would expect. But the government does not actually get involved. The government sits back, as it did with HIH, and lets things roll along. This is a government that talks about market forces and how it should contribute and allow things to happen. You do not just allow collapses. You do not allow huge industries and medical defence organisations and insurance providers to collapse. The government did very little and was very reluctant to get involved until it was forced to do so by the very real prospect that AMIL and UMP would cease to operate—what that would mean for medical services, provider doctors, liability and public indemnity insurance.So the government was—as always—dragged kicking and screaming to the tableand forced to deal with these matters. That was when the matters actually started getting worse and not better. The Prime Minister had one view; the health minister had another view. In fact, everybody had a different view. The government did not know what its view was and it really bungled through for quite a lengthy period. I remember meeting with maybe 120 or 130 doctors in my electorate who were extremely concerned. I would not say that doctors normally lean to the Labor side. Maybe they lean to the Liberal or government side. But it was certainly clear from that meeting that those doctors were extremely concerned at the government's inaction, that they were seeing the effects of the government's confusion about what it would do, what sorts of assurances it would provide and how it would act. It seemed that it was not sure and that reflected back to the doctors themselves and to patients.The problem we have seen so far with bulk-billing and obviously expect to see in the future is that bulk-billing is threatened. We saw in the media doctors saying that they would withdraw their services. A number of GPs have said that they have thought about leaving the industry, retiring, that this was just too complicated, they could not afford it and that the government needed to do something. This was a true crisis. In crisis times you see the best or the worst of government—in this case, we saw the worst.We have now seen a fallout from not only this but also a range of other things. GP services that are bulk-billed are down to 73.9 per cent—that is, down almost seven per cent since the Howard government came into office. I remember reading a famous quote from John Howard some 20 years ago. He said back then that he would put a knife into the belly of Medicare. He made that comment not—10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I would remind the member for Oxley of standing order 81 which says that the debate must be relevant to the bill before the House.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—I thank you for that advice. I honestly, with full respect, cannot understand how this is not relevant because it is about Medicare and public indemnity and the liability— 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is a very, very tight bill—83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—Absolutely, and I think all these things are related to how we actually got to this point.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. A second reading amendment has been moved that covers a range of issues in relation to insurance.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have read the second reading amendment. It does not talk about the Medicare rebate.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—I think you will find it covers a range of issues—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have read the second reading amendment. 83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—In this place we often talk about a whole range of things. One thing that is important in trying to explain our views and represent our electors, our constituents, is that people have a right to talk about the issues they believe are key and central to why we are discussing this second reading amendment. The second reading amendment might be very specific in what it relates to, but I am explaining the background and how we got to that point. That is key and central to this debate. If people out there understood exactly what things took place, who the people were and what they actually did, there would be a lot more clarity and the government would not be able to hide behind this bill, assuring that the promises it made earlier would be carried out, that it would support UMP through financial means so that it would not collapse.Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your advice and the advice of members as to relevance, but I believe I am being more than relevant. In fact, I would like to turn my attention to how we got here in terms of HIH. The bid for FAI began back on 23 September a number of years ago with an on-market purchase of 50 per cent of Adler's holding in that company. The following day, Adler agreed to FAI paying Turnbull $1.5 million in fees. At every stage these two cohorts looked after each other. On 10 October, Turnbull recommended to FAI acceptance of a full takeover bid by HIH—and this is where it gets interesting. Incredibly, for the purposes of this exercise he valued FAI at between $157 million and $378 million—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Obviously what is happening here is that comments I would have taken issue with in relation to relevance and the extent to which matters that are before a royal commission and are being considered by that commission and about which the commission has to make findings are being discussed—not because the member himself has in mind discussing these matters but because he intends to introduce—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Minister, are you raising the sub judice rule?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—Yes, I am. Matters that were raised by a member previously and he was not in a position to continue with are now being delivered.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have the point of order, thank you, Minister. The sub judice rule has to be very carefully honoured in the parliament. It depends on the terms of reference to the royal commission. I would ask the member for Oxley to be cognisant of the fact that this is a matter before a royal commission and that the sub judice rule does apply.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—I understand the sub judice rule and I understand that the matters before us here are before a royal commission. What I am talking about is the history. It is a matter of public record. It is in the media. It is a matter of discussion. It is out there in the public arena. You cannot say that I cannot talk about these issues because it is the subject of a certain case when it is out in the public arena right now. I am recalling history. I am going through factual information about what has taken place. This does not breach any rule. I do not think it breaches anything in this House either. I think the government is just trying to cut debate.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—On the point of order: the member has been addressing the point that was raised. The remarks were made earlier that it came only from the public record. But when the honourable member for Werriwa was uttering them, he made it clear that he was in fact selectively quoting from the transcript and he cited pages of the transcript from which he was quoting. These are matters that are being considered by a commission. The commission has the totality of all of the evidence before it and will come to some conclusions. What we have here is selective quoting from, it is said, newspaper reports, and also from the commission documents. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have the point, Minister.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—These are matters which have to be considered fully by the commission and should not be debated in this House in this selective manner.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have to say again that this is a very delicate matter and that there is evidence being taken by a royal commission at the present time. Under the sub judice rule, the parliament is not allowed to canvass in any way opinions that might have some effect on the decisions of that royal commission. I would ask the member for Oxley not to venture into that area.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Again, I cannot see where I have breached any of these rules. I cannot see why the minister finds it necessary to continue debating this issue in points of order. If he wants to debate it, maybe he should take some time on the roster and do it himself.In this whole bill and particularly the second reading amendment, there are a number of issues, some of which specifically relate to my electorate. I want to go to the effect that this legislation, this crisis and related issues are having in my electorate. We are now seeing a turn around of what was common practice in Australia. Previously, people could go to their doctor and bulk-bill, and they could go with confidence—and doctors had confidence in their own systems—that they would be taken care of. We are now seeing for the first time people being turned away; we are seeing mothers and children being turned away because they cannot afford to pay the up-front fee. This is extremely distressing. How did we get to this distressing state of affairs? How did people out in the community get to this point?How we have got to this point is contained in some of the things I want to talk about, such as why there was a collapse in the first place and why we are at the point of a second reading debate. There are a number of people who were involved in HIH and those collapses who have something to answer for. I want to put that on the record. In continuance, while Mr Adler and Mr Turnbull are obviously involved with the commission—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think the member has been relevant to the debate, and then he says `in continuance'. Again he has picked up the notes that somebody else was going to read and is determined to flout your ruling.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have the point of order, Minister.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: as per the earlier discussion on this issue and the rulings by Deputy Speaker Jenkins, deciding whether a matter is sub judice is up to you. You have stated continually today in response to points of order that you will listen carefully to what the member says. It is not up to the minister to rule on that issue. He is not in a court and he is not a lawyer in a court today—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have the point of order.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—and it is your right to make that decision. It is not your right to tell him.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Exactly.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: as has been stated, your discretion in these matters is absolute. It is absolutely clear that, if a criminal proceeding is before the courts and people have been charged, the sub judice rule would apply. But I would draw your attention to page 495 of House of Representatives Practice, the Harris edition. Previous Speakers have allowed matters to be discussed in the House relating to royal commissions, but there is an imperative that any remarks that are made by a member should not prejudice the outcome of that royal commission. So, whilst in a sense I agree with the minister about being cautious about the sub judice rule, given the wide implications for all Australians of the matters being raised by the honourable member for Oxley and the fact that this is a royal commission that can only prosecute contempt and perjury charges, I think the member for Oxley should be given some latitude in the interests of his constituents to raise the matters that he seeks to raise. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—On the point of order: I am well aware of the very difficult situation that we are in at this stage. I do not want to constrain debate and we do have special privileges in this House. But I also think we should recognise the fact that other people have rights in this country and we should not be infringing upon those rights. This is a matter before a royal commission. The findings of the royal commission will have some very serious effects on people who might be before that commission at the present time. I am not in the mood to believe that we should be debating those particular points here in this parliament. I have to say that, if the member for Oxley continues down that track, I will have to sit him down.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In terms of there being no prejudice about what I want to say and put on the public record in this place and given my confidence in what is here before me, I find it difficult that I am not allowed to continue and that you have warned me basically that I will be sat down if I am to continue. That leaves me very little choice. I believe that everything that is here is a matter of the public record. Things that are out in the public arena cannot be matters that are not brought into—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Oxley does not have the right to debate the rulings of the chair. If he is unhappy with the rulings of the chair, there are standing orders in the House to deal with such rulings. If you are persistent in wanting to carry on down this track, then I will have to terminate your speech, which course of action is available in the standing orders.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I understand that you have that right as the chair. However, I would urge you to use constraint in such a ruling. The fact of the matter is that if the member is stating matters that are clearly before the public, that the information he is providing is actually part of the public record, then I think that would be an unfair constraint on debate. I think you ought to consider that very carefully.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have rejected that point of view. It has been raised on two or three occasions and I have said that, given the seriousness of the situation and the effects it would have on people, we have to be very careful about what we raise in this particular House and what effect that might have on a royal commission.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—Further to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: as I raised in my earlier point of order—which, as I recall, you actually agreed with—the matter as it was considered by Deputy Speaker Jenkins earlier today is at odds with your final point in terms of that ruling. So I am a bit concerned that you are, in fact, going further than Deputy Speaker Jenkins actually said.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am not aware of what Deputy Speaker Jenkins said, but let me point you to page 49 of House of Representatives Practice. Just above `Interruptions to members speaking', it says:The discretion of the Chair, and the need to recognise the competing considerations, is always at the core of these matters.That is the area that I have ruled on. I believe it to be a very sensitive matter, and I believe we should not be debating those issues here.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the minister for workplace relations has a habit of coming into the parliament at question time and on other occasions discussing the activities of the building unions in the context of the Cole royal commission—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is not a point of order. The member for Rankin will resume his seat.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—In the very short time I have left because of the debate on whether I should or should not speak, I want to congratulate the government for bringing about the royal commission. I think they should actually pursue things further. The things I wanted to raise were pertinent to some issues that the government should consider. I felt that it was important in terms of the second reading amendment to actually highlight those public indemnity insurance issues. (Time expired)11:30:007932Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise to speak in support of the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002. About 18 months ago I brought some problems to the House on behalf of the specialists and the GPs of the Riverina. The problems at that time were that there was no clear distinction between true negligence and inadvertent poor outcome, and that the current system of medical indemnity was no longer sustainable in that the premiums were virtually unaffordable, the awards were excessive and the benefit to patients was marginalised by hidden costs in settlements. (Quorum formed) As I was saying, at that time the collapse of UMP was considered likely by the specialists and doctors of the Riverina and there was a likely exposure of many of those doctors to an uncovered tail. Also there was the likely extinction of some types of medical practices, including private obstetrics and neurosurgery. We brought to the House some issues with solutions that were basically consumer driven. The political, legal and insurance solutions included tort law reform resulting in a distinction between negligence and inadvertent poor outcome; a no-fault compensation scheme with appropriate funding for care of long-term disabled and catastrophically injured people, including those such as cerebral palsy victims; structured settlements rather than one-off payments; banning of contingency arrangements; and formal mandatory conciliation processes prior to legal proceedings being instigated, with the panels to include patients, doctors, expert advisers and experienced arbiters in order to provide a more beneficial outcome. We also looked at a review of the statute of limitations, currently 25 years for that limitation involved with children, and we wanted to raise the issue of a guaranteed tail cover. Those issues were visible about 18 months ago and have all come to fruition. For my electorate of Riverina, the medical indemnity crisis and the rising cost to medical practitioners continue to threaten the very existence of vital health services, including obstetrics in Wagga Wagga and across the Riverina. As the largest inland city in New South Wales, Wagga Wagga services a large surrounding population, with many of these communities dependent on services provided in the city. In addition, Griffith Base Hospital and Griffith doctors service an enormous area that requires their services to treat rural people. The threat that there will be no obstetric services within the Riverina in a year is being felt around my electorate and the rest of New South Wales, requiring action by the New South Wales government. The medical indemnity crisis has added to the lack of obstetricians willing to practise in rural and regional areas. It is time the state government stepped in and fulfilled its role in working to retain the services of these much-needed doctors while continuing reform in the area of litigation. I congratulate the state government of New South Wales for their move to reform the area of litigation.Unless there is a major effort at both state and federal levels to alleviate short-term cost pressures and instigate meaningful tort law reform, the services will be lost for the foreseeable future. NSW Health has overseen the development of this crisis for some time. There have been lots of warnings. Ideology has left New South Wales as the only state where VMOs—that is, visiting medical officers—had to provide their own insurance cover for malpractice events occurring in public hospitals. I am pleased to see that the New South Wales government moved to resolve this issue, due to the fact obviously that there was enormous pressure on doctors and specialists attending patients in public hospitals.NSW Health has stated that it would cost them around $70 million per year to extend Treasury managed cover to all VMOs. NSW Health has acknowledged the essential need for tort law reform but basically does all that it can to avoid directly helping individual doctors with their spiralling costs. One of the doctors in my electorate paid out $108,000 in 2001—a $58,000 premium and a $48,000 call under UMP, plus interest of $2,000. This case represents a vast number of the predicaments faced by medical services and doctors. Against the background of talk, tort law reform is unlikely to succeed unless governments at both state and federal levels accept that the cost pressures from a system that is running out of money will end up being paid for by government and that reform needs to be meaningful. At the federal government level, costs may now come out of medical benefits schedules. Recent improvements in rebates for obstetricians and others have been overwhelmed by current cost pressures. In some regional centres, private obstetrics practice has ceased altogether, and this trend will certainly spread. New South Wales can no longer afford the current system as it relates to medical indemnity, workers compensation and other areas of personal injury. Current tort law reform encourages opportunistic behaviour at both plaintiff and lawyer level, and it is essential that there is leadership to encourage reforms in all Australian jurisdictions.In general terms, Australia follows 10 years behind the changes in the US, where most states have been through this cycle. But they instituted meaningful law reforms that allowed services to be maintained. They have, however, not just capped damages, made plaintiff counselling compulsory and established specific lists of notifiable complications for medical procedures; they also have a meaningful statute of limitations. Unless the New South Wales parliament and the attorneys-general pass legislation covering all these areas, then short-term benefits will only lead to long-term failures. Currently in Australia the unborn has no rights in law, but the newborn has a 25-year statute of limitations. Whilst it is true that it may take some years to assess neurological impairment of a newborn, it would not be unreasonable to make a statutory limit for notification of a problem which would at least allow for more effective actuarial planning by any medical defence organisation. Better still, as use of the current adversarial system of tort law leads to terrible inequities for a neurologically impaired newborn, would it not be better to establish a more equitable way of compensating these victims? Problems arising from medical indemnity premiums and medical indemnity issues are not new. The 1995 Tito report commissioned by Senator Graham Richardson when he was federal Minister for Health concluded that it was best to stick with the existing adversarial process rather than change to a fault-free system of compensation. Doctors were blamed for this outcome, as part of the proposal for the fault-free system meant that doctors charged with negligence would be tried under the Criminal Code. Australia's specialist medical colleges rejected this proposal but are now criticised for their refusal.As the adversarial process depends on finding and proving fault, there are some gross inequities on both sides of this process at different times and in different cases. If fault cannot be found, as is the case for 90 per cent of cerebral palsy victims, then they go uncompensated. Huge payouts have been awarded in cases where fault is deemed to have been proved—and that is of course the aim of plaintiff lawyers in all medical indemnity cases. In the past, cases were tried by the jury, but the complexity of many cases and concerns about inappropriate outcomes meant that a change relying on judgment handed down by the presiding judge was welcomed when introduced a few years ago. Now the problem lies with the judge having the responsibility of deciding on matters of fault where the adversarial process itself winds up the participants to do whatever they can to influence the outcome. It is a very expensive way of trying to deal with suffering and trying to sort out genuine cases from those that are the by-product of a society that believes that there must be compensation for every setback, real or imagined.Various ironies arise from the success of modern obstetrics—I come back to obstetrics, as this is the most critical area in my electorate. Perfect outcomes are anticipated. There is a quaint belief that all you need these days are a few foetal medicine units in big cities, midwives and quick recourse to a caesarean section if there are any problems. This shows no real understanding of how rural and regional communities work. Obstetric services are an obvious, vital lifeblood for any community. Regional Australia is hurting enough without any thought of downgrading obstetrics. I have witnessed first-hand the problems faced by doctors in my electorate. While introducing this legislation to provide cover for medical practitioners, we must continue to encourage the state governments to carry out tort law reform at a time when fear of legal consequences is becoming a way of life for all Australians. The fear of litigation is an issue that businesses, individuals and community groups now deal with on a regular basis. Many people no longer take responsibility for their actions and instead turn to the courts to find someone to blame. So while medical indemnity is part of the problem, our inability to accept responsibility for our own actions is also a contributing factor.The Prime Minister has stated that a new, comprehensive framework of measures to address the difficulties being experienced in the medical indemnity insurance industry will be in place by 31 December 2002. These measures have been the subject of consultation and will be the subject of consultation with key stakeholders, including the states and territories, the AMA, medical defence organisations, affected medical practitioners and some consumer groups. The coalition government is working urgently but prudently to ensure workable and lasting solutions—solutions that are in the best interests of the Australian community as a whole—and to ensure that they are put in place. The Prime Minister announced on 31 May 2002 that measures to deal with the more serious, higher cost claims were among the many options being canvassed by the government to put medical indemnity insurance on a viable commercial basis and to move it forward.Bringing medical defence organisations into the prudential framework for general insurers is one of the key elements of the longer term strategy announced by the Prime Minister on 31 May 2002 to address difficulties being experienced in the medical indemnity insurance industry. Medical indemnity is an issue of great concern for all Australians—and rightly so. When an issue such as this threatens the basic right to health care, especially in a highly developed nation like Australia, Australians have every right to be concerned. This government has concentrated on finding a workable solution and implementing it, which is what this bill before the House does.By bringing in this legislation, the government has responded to the crisis and will continue to plan ahead to ensure that medical practitioners are protected—and so too the health services of our country. But this cannot take place without some meaningful tort law reform. Australians rate health care as one of the most important things, if not the most important thing, in their life, and the thought of medical practitioners not being able to practise is unthinkable in a developed country like Australia. Instead of putting this issue in the too-hard basket, where it has been for so long—this has been coming for so long and yet it was always too hard to deal with—the government has worked towards finding a solution to meet the needs of all involved, thereby ensuring health services can continue to be provided.The bill sends a clear message to the provisional liquidator of UMP, all members of UMP and AMIL and the public that the Commonwealth stands by its commitment to the health of all Australians. The bill has been drafted so as not to interfere with the New South Wales Supreme Court's supervision of the provisional liquidation of the companies. This bill does not specify an exact amount to be appropriated, because this amount is currently unknown. Instead, the bill refers to payments made under a medical indemnity agreement. It is intended that any medical indemnity agreement entered into by the Commonwealth will tightly define what payments are covered by the guarantee and will contain provisions allowing the Commonwealth to audit those payments.I stand here before the House today in support of all of the practitioners in my electorate of Riverina and across Australia. The circumstances for these practitioners, having to deal with enormous problems associated with setting up their lives in rural communities, have been exacerbated by this medical indemnity issue. They have been exacerbated by the willingness of the Australian public to blame all and sundry for their actions and to not be accountable for their own actions at times. At no time would I say that doctors are not guilty of making mistakes and causing accidents and at no time have I advocated that the public must wear the costs of these mistakes. But at all times doctors work with the health of their patients uppermost in their minds. Each time we see litigation that is perhaps unreasonable, it puts a fear into doctors, making them wonder exactly how they are going to sustain a life, which is already difficult in rural areas, against a background of continual concern about future litigation. I support the doctors, specialists and GPs right across my electorate of Riverina simply because they do such a sensational job for all of the communities that I represent. I want to see that some way, somehow, tort law reform is made a very real and primary objective of all state governments, to put in place a system that provides fairness to all concerned. I support the bill before the House. 11:49:007935Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Labor support the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002 because it may go some way towards easing the medical indemnity insurance crisis. Our concern is that it will not go anywhere near far enough in doing that and that a range of additional measures will be required to resolve the medical indemnity insurance crisis, if that indeed is possible at all. I think any fair-minded Australian would come to the conclusion that the government has been terribly slow in responding to this crisis. Nevertheless, this legislation does represent a partial response and, on that basis, Labor welcome it.The medical indemnity insurance crisis and the collapse of UMP should really be seen in the broader context of the shocks to the Australian insurance and reinsurance markets that have occurred over the last couple of years. The first of those shocks, of course, was the collapse of HIH—and there is a royal commission into that at present. A second shock occurred on 11 September last year when the World Trade Centre towers were bombed. That, in fact, was the largest insurance event in history. It did two things: firstly, it meant that there were large payouts, and that itself put enormous strains on the insurance industry; and, secondly, it led to a reassessment of the risk and reward position on the part of insurers, and that has resulted in increased premiums. Those are background factors that have had a big influence on the insurance market globally and here in Australia.It is also worth noting that insurance premiums in real terms over the last decade have in fact fallen very substantially in respect of professional indemnity and also, interestingly, for commercial property. So it is arguable that the premiums were for some years below what the market rate should have been, and all those chickens have come home to roost in one major event; that is, the collapse of UMP.One of the consequences of the medical indemnity insurance crisis is that doctors' costs have gone up dramatically. There is an example of a New South Wales country doctor who has been applying a medical indemnity insurance levy of between $2 and $6 per patient. That is a very transparent levy in the case of that one New South Wales country doctor, but the reality is that all doctors are experiencing cost pressures. As a consequence of those cost pressures, doctors are being forced into having to reduce the availability of bulk-billing—and that in my electorate is having dire social consequences. There is a lot of concern within my electorate about the decline in bulk-billing and the attendant increases in the cost of going to a GP, especially by low-income families. They have to pay upfront, around $40 in fact. They end up, after claiming some back on Medicare, paying around $12. That payment has increased over the last few years by 44 per cent. So when a patient is not able to access bulk-billing the net cost to that patient has gone up quite significantly in the last few years.Also associated with this crisis is a declining availability of doctors in outer urban Australia. Again in my electorate of Rankin, doctors in those outer urban areas are having to close their books so that no new patients are accepted. There are plenty of cases in the electorate of patients having to wait for a week or two weeks in order to see a doctor. So the squeeze is well and truly on. 83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—Are they crowding your public hospitals?83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—The member for Kingston asked me whether this is leading to a crowding of public hospitals and the answer is unambiguously yes. In fact there was a case very recently of a young boy who had dislocated his shoulder. He was taken by his parents to Logan Hospital and they could not treat him because there were so many people in outpatients waiting for medical attention. To cut a long and sad story short, he went to four hospitals—by now it was the very early hours of the morning—and his parents were told that he would have to wait many more hours to have his shoulder put back in. They went home. He remained in pain for the best part of 24 hours and finally got into a hospital, where his shoulder was put back in.That is not the sort of health care system that was developed under previous Labor governments. Medibank was introduced by the Whitlam government—and that was fiddled with and ultimately dismantled by the Liberal government under the leadership of Malcolm Fraser and the treasurership of the present Prime Minister of Australia. In 1983 Medicare was introduced and it provided universal health insurance. At that time two million Australians were uninsured, but they all became insured as a result of Medicare. In 1987 the present Prime Minister, who was then opposition leader, had some very revealing statements to make about Medicare. On the Alan Jones program on 27 May 1987 he said:What I'm going to do is take a scalpel, without punning too much, to Medicare. I'm going to say to people if you want to get out of Medicare and make your own private health insurance arrangements you can do so. They will be given an incentive to do it. They will not have to pay the levy. I'll get rid of bulk billing completely for people other than pensioners. I'll free up the whole private health insurance market so that health funds can in competition with each other offer a variety of packages to help consumers.He said, just three days later on 1 June 1987, on the John Laws program:There will be many major reductions in health, the Medicare system is a total disaster, we will be proposing changes to Medicare that amount to its de facto dismantling. We will pull it right apart.That is the Prime Minister of this country.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Fifteen years ago! That was a long time ago.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—The member for Moreton says that was a long time ago. In fact, the Prime Minister conceded privately that his plan was to continue to pull Medicare apart, to take a scalpel to Medicare. This was not a popular public policy so he set upon a path of doing it by stealth. His shadow minister for health, on 21 January 1990, said it all at an infamous press conference.83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—That was a great press conference.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—It was a great press conference. The shadow minister for health, who has disappeared completely off the radar screen as a result of that disastrous press conference, said:You might accuse us of a lot of things but one of the things I don't think we're guilty of is learning from our past mistakes.Never a truer word said. This government could not be accused of being guilty of learning from its past mistakes.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MP83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—That is a very good question; you are going well here. I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the member for Moreton and I did not coordinate this, but his flurry of dorothy dix questions has been most helpful. I, in fact, drew attention to the great difficulties being experienced in our local area in respect of the availability of GPs and the decline in bulk-billing services. That was published in the Southern Star newspaper, and I was fascinated to read the response of the member for Moreton. The report says:He dismissed reports there had been a reduction in the number of GPs offering the service.I would be quite happy to ask the Deputy Speaker to extend indulgence to allow the member for Moreton to reiterate the claim that there has been no reduction in bulk-billing in his electorate. In the last two years the number of services that have been bulk-billed in the electorate of Moreton has declined from 646,000 to 588,000. I think that is a very substantial decline. Perhaps the member for Kingston, who is very numerate in these areas, would be able to confirm that a fall in the number of services bulk-billed from 646,000 to 588,000 is a large fall. 83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—It is a large fall. There has been a large fall in my electorate.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—It is a very substantial fall, and there has been a large fall in the electorate of the member for Kingston. But the member for Moreton asked for something more recent, and this is more recent. I think he actually said about 12 days ago. It is probably about 14. I would not call it ancient history. I am fascinated with his response because he obviously has not read his own local newspaper. It is headed: `Fear dismissed'—dismissed by the member for Moreton. The member for Moreton said that there is no medical crisis and there is no difficulty in relation to the availability of bulk-billing and the availability of GPs in his electorate. In fact, he went on to say, and I am very pleased to be able to quote him: But to be blunt, if your doctor does not offer you the service you can always go to another one.Is that still your view?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Go on.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—It is? Thank you. The member for Moreton says that that is still his view. If you have parents with a couple of children who ordinarily go to a doctor and the doctor says, `As a result of the medical indemnity insurance crisis, as a result of the government's ongoing battle with GPs in this country as represented by the Australian Medical Association, I have to withdraw my bulk-billing services,' the member for Moreton arrogantly says, `Let them eat cake. They can go to another doctor if they want.'The member for Moreton has become a very arrogant local member, dismissing major concerns such as the medical indemnity insurance crisis and the reduction of bulk-billing in his own electorate—a very substantial decline in bulk-billing—and the fact that in his electorate, just as in my electorate, doctors are closing their books. Doctors are moving back towards the inner city parts of the capitals of Australia where they do not face the higher costs in the outer suburbs, where it is a bit easier on them, where they can set up in medical centres. I would have thought the member for Moreton would join me in putting as much pressure on the government as possible to deal with this crisis in health care in our adjacent electorates.83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—I think there he should admit bulk-billed services have fallen for the last three years in his electorate.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—In fact, there has been a consistent decline—as the member for Kingston has pointed out—in the number of services that are bulk-billed in the member's electorate, and here he is dismissing reports there had been a reduction in the member of GPs offering the service. I would like to hear from the member for Moreton. I think he should speak on this legislation and say in this parliament what he has told his own local residents: that there is no problem in relation to bulk-billing in his electorate, there is no problem with increased costs faced by doctors and there is no problem of reduced availability of doctors. There is. This is an arrogant and out of touch member for Moreton. This attitude is being replicated right across Australia by Liberal and National Party members of parliament, who are dismissing this problem as if it does not exist. It does exist. If he were a good MP, he would make himself available for meetings with local doctors and local community groups and patients so that he could hear first-hand, as I have been hearing first-hand, about the declining availability of health care in our local areas.The medical indemnity insurance crisis has been a significant contributing factor but the government is not all that worried about this because it is quite comfortable with the reduction in bulk-billing that is going on nationally. It is quite comfortable because it is the same man who was then opposition leader and is now the Prime Minister who said in 1987: What I'm going to do is take a scalpel, without punning too much, to Medicare ... We will pull it right apart. That is what he said in 1987. That man, the Prime Minister of Australia, has never changed his spots. The only change is that he recognised that a publicly stated policy of pulling Medicare right apart, of taking a scalpel to Medicare, was not popular and is not popular. It contributed very substantially to the loss by the now Prime Minister, then as opposition leader, of the 1987 election in which in fact Labor picked up four seats—Ford, Petrie, Fisher and Hinkler—in Queensland as a result of the Prime Minister's publicly stated policy of taking a scalpel to Medicare, that he would tear Medicare right apart.His political strategy changed but his policy never changed. His political strategy was that if he ever got into power—and he did nearly 10 years later—then he would not publicly state that he would take a scalpel to Medicare or that he would tear it right apart but that he would dismantle Medicare by stealth. What is a very effective way of dismantling Medicare by stealth? The answer is to preside over a reduction in the availability of bulk-billing services. It is low-income families who rely on bulk-billing services and who do not have the money to pay $40 up-front to a doctor and then go next door to the chemist and pay prescription costs of $25 per child, particularly in the middle of winter if they all have the same sort of ailment for which they are prescribed antibiotics. The government wants to increase those costs as well. It wants to bring Medicare into disrepute. It has brought in a private health insurance rebate which it said would reduce hospital waiting lists. What has been the effect of the private health insurance rebate on hospital waiting lists? The answer is a 0.1 per cent decrease in public hospital admissions.There is no evidence to support the claim that increased private health insurance membership has eased the pressure on public hospital waiting lists. That policy has not achieved the stated objective at all. The government is intent on dismantling Medicare by stealth. Its sluggishness and lethargy in responding to the medical indemnity insurance crisis is just another sorry chapter in the history of the government quite deliberately presiding over the destruction of Medicare. When the next election is called, the decline in the availability of doctors in outer urban Australia and the increased costs faced by patients in outer urban Australia will be and must be a major electoral issue.What are the basic tenets of a fair society? They are equality of opportunity in accessing education and a decent, affordable health system so that those on low incomes do not have to confront inferior health care. It is the philosophy of the Labor Party that everyone is entitled to decent, affordable health care—a philosophy to which the Liberal Party is completely hostile. The government has to deal with this crisis of availability of doctors in outer urban areas. The member for Moreton could contribute by recognising that in his electorate, just as in my neighbouring electorate, there is a genuine health crisis. It is time the government started addressing that crisis in a meaningful way.12:09:007938Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The medical indemnity insurance crisis has the ability to impact on the delivery of medical services to all Australians in a way that has never been seen. Unless the government seriously addresses this matter, our health services will be in chaos. There is no guarantee whatsoever that Australians will be able to obtain the life-saving health care they need. Whilst I support the legislation as an interim measure, I have to say that the Howard government's handling of this matter leaves a lot to be desired. It was only after doctors started cancelling appointments and operations and the government was faced with a total collapse of the health system that it acknowledged there was a problem.All the states and territories have acted to cover doctors within the public system, but unfortunately the Howard government, which has promoted itself as a champion of the private sector, has yet to come to the party. When doctors working in the private sector—the sector they support so strongly—looked to the government for leadership, they found it had failed them. To illustrate this to some degree, I was in one of the shopping centres within my electorate and met one of the obstetricians that work out of Belmont Hospital. In fact, this obstetrician delivered one of my children. I stopped and spoke to him. He expressed to me his absolute disappointment at the handling of the medical indemnity insurance crisis in this country. I suspect that this doctor is quite sympathetic to the government in a number of areas, but he used words like, `The government have made a real hash of handling this issue. They are going to throw the whole system into chaos.' The long-term implications of this are that it will impact on the health services that Australians can obtain. I am interested in a number of the issues raised by the member for Rankin. I will touch on some of those later. Firstly, it is important that we look at what has happened with medical indemnity insurance in Australia. One of the key factors following HIH Insurance seeking voluntary liquidation was that the Chief Executive of UMP was reported to say that UMP had applied for the worst-case scenario. In June 2001, UMP announced that it had written off $30 million due to the collapse of HIH. The collapse of HIH and the government's failure to act on that matter have enormous implications in this area. It is interesting to hear what is coming out of the royal commission. It is also interesting to reflect on the state we would be in if the government had acted a little more quickly. It is important to say that overall 60 per cent of doctors were insured for medical indemnity insurance with UMP, but in New South Wales, the state I come from, it was actually 90 per cent. I know from talking to many doctors how worried they have been about what happened earlier this year. My own GP expressed her concern about the problem. I think it was in December 2001 that premiums increased on an average of about 52 per cent. It was higher for some obstetricians and neurosurgeons.The impact of this crisis on obstetricians and neurosurgeons in the area that I represent—the Hunter and the Central Coast—has been enormous. In the area covered by the Hunter Area Health Service, it is my understanding that there are currently three obstetricians working privately in the Newcastle area and one in Lake Macquarie. I do not know about Maitland and other outlying areas, but I am sure that the situation would be quite comparable. Once again we have a government that is pushing private health care and private health insurance as alternatives, which it sees as very positive. Yet we do not have obstetricians willing to offer those services to the people of the Hunter. The obstetrician I was referring to earlier has ceased practising within the private sector and only works within the public sector. Of course, he is covered by the New South Wales government as a VMO.It is interesting to note that there are three or four neurosurgeons operating in the Hunter and only two neurosurgeons working in private practice on the Central Coast. On the Central Coast, there are seven obstetricians working within private practice. This restricts the choices of people within the area and has a number of long-term implications. For people within our community, the lack of choice and availability of obstetricians and neurosurgeons is only going to get worse, unless the government addresses the issue.In May this year, the minister wrote to doctors to explain why they should have faith in the government. I have news for the government: doctors are questioning them. They have lost faith. They have looked to the government for leadership and feel they have been rather let down. The interim arrangements for payments of some claims were entered into in May this year. At the end of May, the Prime Minister announced an extension of the guarantee to December this year, on modified terms. It is only after considerable angst within the community that we have reached the position we are in now. As is set out in the bill, we need to at least be able to cover people until the end of this year.This has had some enormous effects on people. This legislation confirms the arrangements that have previously been made by the government, which is good. It covers the payments, when required, under the medical indemnity agreement between the Commonwealth, UMP and AMIL, and insolvency representatives of those companies, which is good. The Prime Minister has flagged the levy, and I am hopeful that details of that will be announced fairly soon. A number of issues arise out of what has happened with medical indemnity which affect the services to people on the ground in the communities that I represent. The problem with medical indemnity has directly affected the affordability and availability of medical services. I am sure members on both sides of this House can reiterate numerous stories about how their doctors have increased the price of their services and how hard it is to obtain an appointment with their doctors. On a regular basis, people within the Shortland electorate, both on the Central Coast and in the Hunter, are having problems arranging an appointment to see their doctor.There is a shortage of doctors, particularly on the Central Coast, where there is one doctor for every 2,500 people. The national average is one per 1,000 people. Where there is one doctor per 2,500 people, it is understandable that people are waiting seven to 14 days for an appointment with their doctor. It is my understanding that recently a doctor's practice within the electorate has closed. I know the problems and stress that have been placed on doctors as a direct result of this problem with medical indemnity insurance, and this is impacting on the services and accessibility of doctors within the electorate.The other issue is bulk-billing, which has declined by over 18 per cent in the Shortland electorate over the last two years. It is currently at 60.5 per cent across the electorate. But I have news for the government: there are very few doctors offering across-the-board bulk-billing within the electorate. There are very few doctors who are bulk-billing all pensioners. Generally, they accept the gold card, but there are reports of some doctors who are refusing to accept the gold card. With respect to the decline in bulk-billing, I would like to refer quickly to a research paper by the library. That research paper reinforces the fact that there has been a decline in bulk-billing under this government. All those points made by the member for Rankin demonstrate how little commitment the government actually has to bulk-billing and Medicare. The decline in bulk-billing—and this is borne out in the research paper—has forced more people to access services through the public hospitals. This has increased waiting times in the public hospitals and has shifted the cost of providing medical services from the Commonwealth to the states. This impacts on the services that the states can provide. The government's failure to resolve the issues of medical indemnity insurance and specialists withdrawing from the private sector has once again shifted costs to the states, because those services are being provided through the states.The other issue is the impact on the high-risk specialties. Specialities I identified a moment ago are two prime examples: obstetrics and neurosurgery. The most talented doctors have always sought to enter those specialties but, unfortunately, with this problem with medical indemnity insurance, they are shying away from these highly specialised areas. Where once you had the most talented students going into those specialties, now they are having difficulty getting doctors to enter those specialties. That is very sad and has long-term implications for us here in Australia. A number of specialists are asking for up-front payments from their patients before they will operate or arrange for them to enter a private hospital. One constituent I was talking to within the last two weeks told me that she has had two procedures: one was with a gynaecologist. She had to sign a form saying that she would not claim from either a private health insurance company or Medicare and that she was willing to pay a $200 up-front fee that was to be used purely for paying the doctor's medical indemnity insurance. That same person also had a carpal tunnel operation, and on that occasion she had to pay $100 up-front. This problem is having enormous ramifications. Another woman I was talking to recently also had to pay a $200 up-front fee before the doctor would arrange for her to have an operation in a private hospital. This person was a pensioner and really had to scrimp and save to be able to afford to keep up her private health insurance payments and her payments were at the highest level, so she was very disappointed. I have written to the Minister for Health and Ageing about this matter but I am still awaiting an answer.There has been an increase in the fees of GPs. It is understandable—they have had an increase in the insurance premiums they have to pay. GPs in my area are charging as high as $40, $42, $47 or $49 for consultations and, at the same time, there has been a decline in bulk-billing. I conducted a survey of some 1,790 people within my electorate. That survey identified health as the most important issue. It also identified that bulk-billing, Medicare and being able to see a doctor are the most important issues for people. The problems we are experiencing in this country are not an Australian phenomena; they have been experienced in other countries. We need a government that is prepared to show leadership and creativity—creativity of the kind that was detailed in the Canberra Times of 3 May. The Canberra Times article talked about a decision that was taken in Indiana to introduce an act which addressed the issue of medical malpractice. It put in place a comprehensive cap on damages, a mandated medical review before trial by a specialist board, and the establishment of a state-run patient compensation fund to pay large claims—all interesting initiatives which this government has not explored. The government has been more interested in apportioning blame.The other interesting report that I have come across was a report undertaken by Oregon Health Services in conjunction with the university there. The spokesperson was Larry Baker. They found that they dramatically reduced the costs of medical negligence claims simply by communication—by talking, by admitting the fact that there had been a mistake and by getting in there and trying to resolve the problem. The current system does not recognise that. There is no working together to resolve the problem; it is straight into the legal arena, where there is a big win for the lawyers, and the person who has been injured or has a problem is the one who loses in the long run and it keeps them in the system for a very long time. Unless and until reforms are in place, there will continue to be a crisis. (Time expired)12:29:007941Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—I would like to speak for a few minutes on the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002, following the very sad contribution from the member for Rankin. It is important to realise that this government is providing more doctors in outer metropolitan areas. In fact, in the 2002-03 budget, a measure was announced to increase the number of doctors practising in outer metro areas in the six state capitals; $80 million over the next four years will facilitate an additional 150 doctors into areas such as the member for Rankin's electorate and into parts of my electorate of Moreton. Part of this will be done in a number of ways: by allowing specialist trainees and researchers to work in supervised general practice programs in outer metro areas, by requiring doctors undertaking the general stream of general practice training program to train in designated outer metro areas, by allowing selected non-vocationally recognised medical practitioners to undertake a vocational recognition program and by allowing those who agree to work in designated outer metro areas to become eligible for higher Medicare rebates.The placement of these extra doctors in outer metropolitan areas, such as in the electorate of Moreton, will also help to alleviate the pressure placed on inner metropolitan general practitioners, which would include major parts of my electorate. Patients from outer metro areas who have been unable to access medical services locally have been putting those pressures on the inner metro doctors and that, of course, has a roll-on effect.It is important to note that the doctors are having a dispute with the government. Sadly, a number have decided to use their patients who rely on Medicare bulk-billing to try to drive emotion to their side and force the government to do certain things. I guess that bulk-billing is down in a period when private insurance is up. There obviously could be some correlations there. Fewer are using bulk-billing for a number of reasons. It is important either way that bulk-billing and the number of people using bulk-billing are kept in some perspective. It is also important to rebut completely what the member for Rankin was trying to suggest, by quoting 15-year-old comments by our Prime Minister, with this: the government is committed to Medicare. It is working with the medical profession to ensure all Australians have access to high-quality general practice services. There has been a decline; Senator Patterson has said that. But, as I said, it is important to keep that in perspective. In my area, it reflects what has been happening nationally: 70.39 per cent of medical services are available on bulk-bill around Australia. But, at the end of the day, the doctors are attempting to drive further their side of the argument by declining to some the opportunity to access bulk-billing. It is important to know that 25 per cent of the general practitioner consultations are charged to patients; more than one-third have paid only between $1 and $10. Doctors who do not bulk-bill have generally made a different scale of fee available to patients. Doctors understand that some of their patients do not have the capacity to pay the full fee that they might charge to others who they know have that capacity. Doctors have always acted in a compassionate way and have tended to scale their fees according to the capacity to pay. Doctors are not likely to change that.It is important to note that, for senior members of our community—those aged over 65—eight out of 10 services by their general practitioners are bulk-billed. They are provided free of charge. Especially in light of the sad and unfortunately nasty contribution from the member for Rankin, who attempted to create some fear and hurt amongst people who are amongst our more vulnerable in the community, I decided I would contribute briefly to this debate.12:34:007942Windsor, Antony, MPMr WINDSOR009LPNew EnglandIND00—I would like to speak briefly to the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002. I will be supporting it. As a number of speakers have indicated, it is a very important piece of legislation. It is a very important problem we are attempting to address. I do not think anybody presumes this piece of legislation is going to solve all of those problems. I would encourage the government and the opposition to join together to solve this problem into the future.Doctors, particularly in country areas—and in all areas, as a number of members have mentioned—are a very important part of our infrastructure. If we did not have medical practitioners, we would erode the very social infrastructure that maintains our communities. There has been much discussion over recent months—for nearly a year now—in relation to this problem, and there has been a lot of heartache expressed by many in the medical profession. A lot of doctors, particularly those who might be delivering some of our children, are under enormous pressure due to the costs for insurance they have had to incur. The unknown futures they have been looking at have created enormous stresses in our communities. I think it is appropriate that the government not only introduce this bill to the House but also look at other measures to alleviate the medical crisis we are facing.I was interested to listen to the previous speaker, the member for Moreton, when he was talking about the moves the government made in the last budget to attract more medical practitioners to the western suburbs of our major metropolitan centres. What he did not mention in his contribution was that the government has used a non-market mechanism in a sense to attract doctors to those areas and that some of those doctors will go to those areas at the expense of country areas. I know it is for political reasons. We have created a mechanism where doctors will be paid more and, in the case of some of the specialists, where certain incentives will be put in place to attract doctors to those areas. That is very nice for those areas—and they may well be in the marginal seats that determine whether or not the Howard government is elected next time—but what it does is impose additional stresses on the medical practitioners in rural areas as well.There was a medical summit, and the federal government was represented by Senator Sandy Macdonald. A number of these issues were discussed, including differential Medicare rebates, geographic provider numbers and those sorts of incentives that could encourage doctors to work in certain areas. At that summit, the issue of using non-market mechanisms to help drive doctors to where the patients were and to where the patient loadings were very high was virtually ruled out. That summit was held earlier in the year so it was with some degree of disgust that, when the budget papers came out, it was obvious that many millions of dollars were being used by the government to attract doctors to certain parts of our nation. Unfortunately, country areas missed out. We actually have a mechanism now that has been put in place through differential rebates and a number of other incentives that will encourage doctors in very stressed country areas to move to outer metropolitan areas because there are financial incentives for them to do so. As I said, that might be to some degree politically driven in that they are the very seats that elected the Howard government, but I think this issue should be looked at in a much clearer light rather than just using a political tactic such as that.I am not attacking the people in the western areas of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, but I do believe that those mechanisms, if they are going to be applied, should be applied in the areas where doctors are under real stress in terms of their patient loads. I recognise that in some of the western parts of metropolitan areas they are under stress, but I think the government should have taken account of the very stressful loads that country communities do have.12:39:007943Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—This has been a debate which has seen a lot of fervour displayed by those who participated. A substantial number of honourable members from both sides of the House have made a contribution, and on behalf of the government I would like to thank all of them for speaking. The purpose of the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002 is to appropriate funds for payments in accordance with the guarantee between the Commonwealth and the companies, United Medical Protection Ltd and Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd—that is, UMP-AMIL—and the provisional liquidator of those companies. The provisions of the bill are not intended to imply that any future Commonwealth indemnity needs to be supported by legislation. The bill simply confirms the existing legal obligation of the government to make payments to UMP-AMIL and the provisional liquidator in accordance with the guarantee.A number of members have raised some issues which were quite extraneous to the provisions of the bill—that is not abnormal—but the honourable member for Perth has moved a second reading amendment which, for very obvious reasons that you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I presume that he does as well, the government is not prepared to contemplate. The member did mention that the opposition supports this bill, and the government do appreciate the support from the opposition, but we certainly are against the attempt by the Labor Party to politicise what is a very important and significant issue to all people in this country.The member for Perth in his second reading amendment made a number of false assertions and, with respect to those particular matters, I would like to make the following points. The member for Perth is seeking to condemn the government for not acting quickly enough to address problems in the medical indemnity market. In addition, the member for Perth wants this place to recognise the ongoing problems in general insurance and assume the leadership role and the coordination of reforms necessary to state and territory laws with the aim of achieving uniformity in tort law reform.Once again, we have to ask the question whether anyone on the other side, in the opposition, has been paying attention to what has been happening, indeed to what is the actual situation. From the very beginning, the Howard government has been working urgently to develop a comprehensive response to what is undoubtedly and objectively a very complex and multifaceted problem. I will briefly run through what has been happening, to alert the member for Perth and his colleagues to the reality of the situation. On 19 December last year, the Prime Minister announced that a high-level forum on medical indemnity insurance would be convened with the aim of developing a coordinated approach to issues including reinsurance, prudential arrangements, litigation and settlement levels. The government has acted quickly and appropriately and by offering a short-term capital guarantee of $35 million to AMIL on 27 March this year to ensure the continued availability of medical services in Australia. I think that most Australians would see that as being a particularly appropriate action by the government at that time. The Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer has chaired three meetings with her state and territory ministerial colleagues. They have been excellent meetings, there has been a high level of cooperation and a high preparedness to put aside political partisanship, and it is, shall we say, at the very least a pity to recognise that the Australian Labor Party in this chamber is not prepared to approach this important national problem without playing petty partisan politics. These ministerial meetings have looked at what actions could be taken by all governments to address the problems in the public liability area, particularly in relation to tort law reform. On 31 May this year, the Prime Minister announced an extension of the guarantee to UMP on modified terms and the government was working urgently to develop a comprehensive and considered package of reforms to address all aspects of the medical indemnity issue.In this chamber on 27 June I introduced the Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002. That bill seeks to amend the Trade Practices Act to allow people to sign waivers and assume the risk of participating in inherently risky recreational activities. On 2 September, the government released the first of two reports provided by the Ipp panel. This report contained recommendations for reform to the law of negligence and recommendations specifically designed to address the problems of medical practitioners. At the last meeting of the state and territory ministers on 2 October, ministers agreed to make a historic in-principle agreement to a nationally consistent law of negligence, based on the Ipp report. The key recommendations, if implemented nationally, will change the rules as to what behaviour triggers liability and what standards will control compensation. The reforms can be expected to have major flow-on effects for public liability, medical and professional indemnity as well as for providers of recreational services, public authorities such as local councils, and for reducing the incentives for people to make claims for relatively minor injuries.In addition, the government will shortly be releasing its full package of measures to ensure that medical indemnity is both affordable for practitioners and a viable commercial product. As you would appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a very extensive list. The state and territory ministers have been working with our own federal minister in this cooperative national approach, and yet we find regrettably that the Australian Labor Party simply wants to seek to score cheap political points at a time when the government has been providing very much a lead role in solving this national problem. Therefore, I think people will reject the meaningless opposition amendment to this bill. The government is in fact taking action. It is important to contrast the actions of the government with the inactivity on the part of members of the Australian Labor Party in this place.The member for Perth is so concerned about this issue that he is out there trying to drum up a scare campaign, trying to frighten doctors away from their practices, which will have the effect of stopping doctors from treating sick and injured people—and I think that is really very sad. A serious and complex issue for the Australian community—and how does Labor respond? Simply, it seeks to stoop to scaremongering and attempts to score cheap political points. The member for Perth, as Labor's so-called health spokesman, was so concerned about the wellbeing of Australians on 29 April this year that he told the media that doctors should not be confident in going to work to tend their patients.That is an amazing thing to say, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, and I can see that you are nodding in complete understanding of this particular matter. It must have been a very great disappointment for the member for Perth when doctors kept working and the government's actions ensured that Australians continued to have access to vital medical services. On 2 September, the Leader of the Opposition finally woke up to the fact that there may have been a few things going on in the insurance sector. (Quorum formed)I thank the member for Cowan for the opportunity of bringing so many members into the House to hear about the very important benefits which will flow to the Australian community when the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002 passes onto the statute books of this country. I am not certain whether the opposition intends, during the remaining time I have to sum up this bill, to continue to call quorums and to disrupt the ability of the government to respond to the points raised by honourable members in the course of the debate. I do quite a lot of legislation on behalf of the government.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is not the opposition's intention to call quorums, but we do want to point out that it is not appropriate to bring the chair into the debate.10000Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—Thank you. It is not appropriate to bring the chair into the debate.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Mr Deputy Speaker, when I do sum up bills on behalf of the government, I do quite seriously endeavour to respond to the points raised by honourable members. I did intend substantially to comment on the remarks made by a range of members, both government and opposition. But given the loss of time, what I will do is sum up the bill and then, if I have any remaining time, I will endeavour to pay the usual courtesies, which I pay when summing up bills, to members on both sides of the chamber.There are two elements to the government's guarantee with this particular bill. On 1 May 2002, the Minister for Health and Ageing wrote to medical practitioners stating that the Commonwealth would guarantee to the provisional liquidator the obligations of UMP-AMIL to pay any amount properly payable in the period 29 April to 30 June 2002 for claims under a current or past policy. The government also committed to providing a guarantee to the provisional liquidator, or to any subsequently appointed liquidator, to enable the provision of cover in respect of valid claims that arise at any time for holders of a current policy for events that occur between 29 April and 30 June 2002, and holders of a policy that expires and is renewed by the provisional liquidator before 30 June 2002 for events that occur between 29 April and 30 June 2002.On Friday, 31 May 2002, the guarantee to UMP and AMIL was enhanced to cover claims to the end of 2002. The Prime Minister announced that the enhanced guarantee would allow the provisional liquidator to meet claims notified in the period 29 April to 31 December 2002 under an existing or renewed policy, renew policies on a `claims made' basis for the period until 31 December 2002 and continue to meet claims that were notified before 29 April 2002 and are properly payable in the period 1 July 2002 to 31 December 3002. This is an extension of the arrangements set out in a letter of 1 May 2002 from the Minister for Health and Ageing.The Prime Minister also announced on 31 May 2002 that the government would introduce a levy to fund any liability incurred by the Commonwealth under a medical indemnity agreement as a result of the extension of the guarantee on modified terms. This levy is part of a broader levy arrangement to meet the unfunded incurred but not reported—that is, IBNR—liabilities of medical defence organisations. Separate legislation for the levy on certain medical practitioners and for funding these IBNR liabilities will be introduced once the details have been finalised. The indemnity agreement or deed was required to give formal effect to the government's undertakings.On 25 July 2002, the Supreme Court of New South Wales approved the provisional liquidator, on behalf of UMP-AMIL, entering into a deed of indemnity between the Commonwealth, UMP-AMIL and the provisional liquidator, and it was formally executed on 30 July this year. The bill provides for an appropriation out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes of payments in accordance with the indemnity agreement. While funding is not required immediately, the bill will provide for the funds when required. The government sees the passage of this bill as being an important element of a broad strategy to stabilise the medical indemnity insurance market in this nation. I call on all members to support the passage of this bill in a timely fashion in order to ensure that doctors have the certainty they need to continue to practise—despite the comments made by the member for Perth—and thereby ensure that adequate medical insurance will continue to be available for all Australians.In the time remaining, I would like to comment on some of the remarks made by some honourable members. Since the opposition sought to gobble up as much time as it could, I will certainly concentrate on honourable members from this side of the House. The member for Mitchell, in quite a thoughtful contribution, made some very important points about the regulation of medical defence organisations. Something that has not been widely understood in the past is that, because of the way they have structured their policies, medical defence organisations are not insurance companies and hence are not prudentially regulated by APRA, nor are their members protected by the wide body of consumer protection law governing insurance contracts. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you and all members would understand, this is of particular concern to the government, and work is in progress to address this issue. The Prime Minister stated on 31 May that the government would be working to improve transparency in financial reporting and to bring MDOs into the prudential net. In relation to the concerns raised by the honourable member for Mitchell about the rising costs of insurance for high-risk doctors—I think this was also mentioned by a number of other members on both sides of the House—the Prime Minister has also stated that the government will be developing arrangements to ensure premium affordability for this group of doctors.A contribution was made by the honourable member for Herbert, and I realise that I have to separate very carefully the person of the member for Herbert from the temporary occupant of the chair. I was pleased—I know the Chief Opposition Whip will also be pleased—to have heard the member for Herbert give the parliament the news that doctors in his electorate were not spooked by the troubles of UMP. I think this is largely attributable to the quick action taken by this government, being action that this bill relates to. I thank the member for Herbert for his support for this bill—and I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, you would be more than happy to pass on the thanks of the government to the member for Herbert.The member for Indi praised the government. She said that the government's actions have been fast and comprehensive, and she is perfectly correct. I thank her for her considered and well-informed remarks. They contrast sharply with the ignorant points scoring we have seen from members of the opposition. The member for Petrie also made a very worthwhile contribution. She identified in her speech the range of cost drivers which are impacting on the affordability of premiums in liability classes many of which are in the international market and outside the control of governments in any individual jurisdiction. But, as the member for Petrie has explained, the government is committed to taking action or propelling the states to action wherever possible.This is a really important bill, and the government has been working very hard to make sure that it receives the support of the Australian people. I commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr S. Smith's amendment) stand part of the question.13:04:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Lindsay) 71Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.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.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lloyd, J.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.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.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.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.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 agreed to.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.7947Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (1.11 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills7947R16457947Debate resumed from 26 September, on motion by Mr Anthony:That this bill be now read a second time.13:12:007947Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I want to foreshadow at the outset that Labor will be moving a second reading amendment to the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002. We will also seek to have it referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for detailed consideration before determining our final position. I want to make a number of important points today in relation to the content of the bill and about the situation that many Australians living on income support find themselves in. It is timely to be debating a bill of this kind on the United Nations International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.This bill seeks to introduce a legislative framework of mutual obligation and activity testing for people of work force age who have been issued temporary visas and are receiving special benefit. The measures proposed in this bill were originally conceived in the 2000-01 budget. The government claims the bill will encourage social and economic participation by treating nominated visa holders of work force age in a similar way to Australian nationals of work force age by requiring them to be self-reliant and to fulfil a mutual obligation to the Australian community. It also argues that the bill will provide some level of deterrence to people seeking to enter Australia illegally. I want to deal first with the issue of mutual obligation. The mutual obligation framework to be applied is similar to that for many other payments in the social security system. The bill proposes that, from 1 January next year, certain recipients of special benefit who hold a temporary protection visa will be subject to an activity test regime that is similar to the one that currently operates in relation to Newstart allowance. Under this new activity test, visa holders may be required to search for work; to participate in vocational training, the Work for the Dole program and other prescribed activities; and to enter into special benefit activity agreements. Compliance testing, including fortnightly reporting requirements and penalties for noncompliance with the activity test, will apply. Exemptions will exist for people who are incapacitated, where a person has caring responsibilities and in special circumstances and in other prescribed situations, which is similar to the exemptions under the Newstart allowance. In effect, the bill codifies current conditions for special benefit in the Social Security Act, which are already set out in administrative procedures.It is important to also recognise that this concept of activity testing special benefit recipients is not a new one. Generally speaking, people receiving special benefit who are currently required to look for work are those of working age and who are capable of working. Common examples are people with an assurance of support and newly arrived residents in the 104-week waiting period for Newstart allowance or Youth Allowance. In addition to codifying current activity test requirements in the Social Security Act, the bill will also broaden the range of activities that can be required. It will institute a formal agreement framework for recipients through the adoption of special benefit activity agreements. Currently, special benefit recipients are required to look for work but do not have to meet additional requirements, such as completing job search diaries and employer contact certificates and participating in mutual obligation programs such as Work for the Dole.The special benefit activity agreement proposed in the bill mirrors the activity agreements currently outlined in the Social Security Act for Youth Allowance and Newstart recipients. We have no issue with the concept of work force age income support payment recipients being exposed to some form of mutual obligation activity. Where we disagree stridently with the government is with regard to the government's failure to reciprocate the effort of job seekers by providing adequate assistance and support to enable them to make a successful transition into work—this is where our concern lies particularly with this legislation. It does not arise from the types of mutual obligation activities proposed in the social security legislation; it arises from the restrictions that currently apply to the group of visa holders to whom this bill relates.In 1999, the government introduced the temporary protection visa subclass 785 for unauthorised arrivals to Australia who are determined to be refugees. In September 2001, two new visa types were introduced that may also be issued in respect of unauthorised arrivals—the secondary movement offshore entry temporary visa subclass 447 and the secondary movement relocation temporary visa subclass 451. These visas are all issued for humanitarian, temporary protection and safe haven purposes. There are around 5,000 temporary protection visa holders who receive special benefit and who will, therefore, be subject to the new rules created by this bill.It is important to note that these visa types restrict the holders' access to a full range of settlement support arrangements provided to refugees resettled from overseas. As such, these visa holders are ineligible for English-language tuition and other resettlement services. In addition, they can only gain access to basic job matching through the Job Network. Our concern relates to the ability of special benefit recipients affected by this bill to comply with their activity agreements, because the government has not provided the means for them to do so. Why is that the case? It is because this group are likely to face very significant language barriers—a point that ought to be obvious to almost anyone but appears not to be at all obvious to this government. The government's refusal to provide temporary protection visa holders and similar visa holders with English-language tuition means that the mutual obligation relationship being proposed is completely unequal and unrealisable. It brings into question the government's claims that the measure is aimed at achieving greater social and economic participation with this group. We are left with the sinking feeling that what we are getting again from this government is simply the typecasting and stereotyping of a particular group of people for political reasons. The impact of this measure will vary depending on the skills of the nominated special benefit recipients and the specific requirements placed upon them by the activity agreements. In theory, the agreements are flexible, taking into account the circumstances of the visa holder. But there are limited safeguards contained in this bill. For example, the terms of the activity agreements must take into account the individual's capacity to comply with the agreement. Despite such provisions, there remains the potential for nominated special benefit recipients with marginal English language skills to flounder under the new requirements. For the life of me, I cannot understand how the government expects people to comply with these requirements, without providing such essential support. Given the barriers that will exist, it is also very difficult to contemplate how Centrelink will be able to effectively formulate and police the activity agreements.The bottom line for us on this side of the House is that for mutual obligation to work it must be a two-way street. It is important that visa holders get established in the Australian community. I do not believe that visa holders want to remain dependent upon the taxpayer, but we have to be realistic about their chances of achieving economic independence if they are forced to look for work without the requisite basic skills. This is a small group of people in the wider scheme of social security and income support, but they are going to need tailored support in many cases. Many of these people are severely disadvantaged, and this means they need access to language training and a higher level of employment assistance than just job matching. They are not being offered this, so the concern is that they are being set up to fail. It is symptomatic of the wider problem of the government's version of mutual obligation and its general approach to these vulnerable people. While asking more and more of job seekers, the government has provided less.Under the Howard government, we have seen the largest cuts in social services in our history as a nation. Labour market programs have been slashed, and the key capacity building programs that produced a dividend in terms of jobs have been cut. The withdrawal across the board of the government from its commitments to the unemployed has resulted in the creation of poverty traps. Today if you are unemployed, you can expect to spend a year on average on those benefits. If you are an older male, it could be closer to two years. Some 800,000 children are growing up in families where neither parent works. It is no wonder that the level of poverty in our community has risen. Yet in this bill, the government is proposing to impose this mutual obligation on people who are not being given the most essential means so they can go out, look for work and stand on their own two feet—which is what they wish to do.It is an indictment of the government that things could have got worse across the board and that the government could bring forward this proposal, particularly at a time when we have had sustained economic growth and where opportunities are being created. But if people are not being given the opportunity to apply for those opportunities, they remain caught in a poverty and opportunity trap. The recent federal budget has delivered more of the same. Consider the proposal to cut the pensions of 200,000 disability support pensioners by forcing them onto Newstart. These are people who will be asked to be part of the mutual obligation framework. The government is saying under this proposal that someone with cerebral palsy will be classed in the same category as someone with a less severe disadvantage in the labour market and will be told to go down to Centrelink—it is just absurd. What we have is a continuation of this very discriminatory approach from the government. People are being asked to be part of a mutual obligation framework—that is, to look for jobs and to work for the dole—but in return, in the case of disability pensions, they going to have their pensions cut and, in the case of these visa holders, they are not going to be given access to English language backup and the full services of the Job Network. This particular measure, and the government's general approach, fails every test of fairness. It will do nothing to increase social and economic participation in our community. It is important that we reflect on this today, which, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Poverty is now entrenched amongst the ranks of those who are looking for work. In addition to that, one million Australians are living in poverty in households where one or both adults are in work, which is another severe problem. The ABS estimates that there are 1.2 million working Australians living in financial stress. What we have to face up to as a nation is that our failure to invest in basic institutions like our hospitals, schools and universities, and in the programs that assist people to move from welfare to work, has real consequences. It creates poverty traps and the inability of people to break out of them and move forward, because they do not have the essential supports that enable them to stand on their own two feet. We have to face the consequences of that for our long-term economic welfare and for our community as a whole.Labor today has announced that it will be seeking bipartisan support for a Senate inquiry into poverty and the circumstances of the poor as well as the working poor. We urgently need to take notice of what is happening in our communities. Be they migrant communities or communities generally across this country, too many people are trapped in poverty and are caught in a situation in which there is no gateway to opportunity. We do not want to end up with a society where too many people are trapped like that. We do not want a nation where a substantial proportion of our citizens do not have the resources to get by, day by day, or the access to those essential supports which enable them to provide for themselves.Today's bill affects just a few of those people in our community, but it is a very important indication of what this government's general attitude is to vulnerable people who are caught in the types of poverty traps that I have already spoken about. There are substantial problems in this bill. Those problems are the same for many people in this community, not just the 5,000 people on temporary protection visas, but those 5,000 people are particularly and seriously disadvantaged in our community. This bill demonstrates how lopsided mutual obligation is in this country. It demonstrates the propensity of this government to continually scapegoat vulnerable people for political purposes. For those reasons, I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:(1) deplores the Government's inconsistency in requiring people holding temporary protection visas and receiving special benefit to undertake mutual obligation activities while denying them access to English language courses and full Job Network services that are important tools in assisting people receiving income support payments to obtain work; and(2) calls on the Government to ensure that temporary protection visa holders receiving special benefits who are subject to mutual obligation activities are given access to English language services and full Job Network services.” 10000Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—Is the amendment seconded?83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—I second the amendment.13:25:007951Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise to speak in support of the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002. This amendment bill introduces an activity test, similar to that which applies to Newstart recipients, for recipients of special benefits who hold a visa that has been issued for temporary protection, humanitarian or safe haven purposes. Granted with the temporary protection visa, people from nations overseas are seeking to build a life in Australia. This legislation will provide them with the first step to do so.As many Australians recognise, employment is one of the most important aspects of our lives. Without it, we find it difficult to support ourselves and to work towards a sense of achievement in seeing the fruits of our labour. This measure aims to encourage social and economic participation. It treats nominated visa holders of work force age in a similar way to Australian nationals of work force age by requiring them to fulfil a mutual obligation to the Australian community. This is what they are seeking to achieve. This is fair legislation for people who are new to this country and for the community in general. For many people arriving in a new country, one of the first things they aim to do is seek employment. I welcome this ability for new arrivals to gain new friendships. This bill will allow them to do so, enabling them to feel more comfortable in their new home. By participating in the work force, they feel they are making a contribution, and a valued one at that. This is what an immigrant to Australia has come here to do: to make a valuable contribution and to become a true Australian citizen. The measure will provide much needed support and friendship opportunities, as well as valuable work experience, so that people can be part of this process. It will also serve to assist with assimilation into communities by encouraging people to become involved in their local community in many aspects. One of the most difficult things to overcome when arriving in a new and foreign country is the language barrier that often exists. By allowing those with temporary protection visas to work, this legislation will enable them to improve their language and social skills whilst gaining additional employment skills for the future. Not only does it provide temporary visa holders with the opportunity to gain valuable work experience and skills; it may also allow them to use their skills obtained in their country of origin.The success of the government's Work for the Dole projects provides yet another opportunity for holders of temporary protection visas to participate in their communities. The success of this Liberal-National initiative is reflected in a project in my electorate of Riverina. A local community radio station was recently awarded a Prime Minister's 2001 Work for the Dole award for its initiative in renovating a caravan to create an outside broadcast van for live events. This project not only brought a great deal of benefit to the local community but provided the participants with the opportunity to experience working in a radio environment. It has given them valuable training in broadcasting and the technical aspects of radio. A number of participants plan to further their training and employment in the industry. To allow holders of temporary protection visas to participate in worthwhile programs such as this is a fantastic government initiative. We are embracing new visitors and residents and giving them the opportunity to make their contribution to their new or temporary residence.Under the new activity test arrangements, holders of a visa issued for temporary protection, humanitarian or safe haven purposes may be required to look for work. I repeat: they may be required to look for work. They may be required to participate in vocational training and other activities like the Work for the Dole program and to enter into a special benefit activity agreement. These new agreements will also apply to nominated visa holders who are receiving special benefits prior to 1 January 2003 and reach work force age after that date, allowing young visa holders to also obtain useful work experience and skills. The new conditions will not apply to nominated visa holders who are permanently incapacitated for work. It will apply only to those people who are able-bodied and are looking for a new experience in their country of, hopefully, permanent residence. Exemptions from the activity test will be available where a nominated visa holder has caring responsibilities, is temporarily incapacitated for work or is in special circumstances and other prescribed situations similar to those that are provided for Newstart allowees. The member for Lilley discussed English-language tuition classes. These particular visa holders will now have far more opportunity to access established English-language tuition classes than they had before. This is a great initiative on behalf of this government. Consistent with the changes made to the general Newstart allowance activity test by the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002, flexible participation requirements will be extended to special beneficiaries of at least 50 years of age who are required to satisfy the activity test. The aim of these participation requirements is to encourage visa holders of all ages to participate in and contribute to their communities. As part of the 2000-01 budget, the government announced a range of measures addressing the issue of unauthorised arrivals in Australia. The bill before the House gives legislative effect to one of those measures. From 1 January 2003, certain recipients of special benefits who hold a visa of a type that has been issued for temporary protection will be subject to an activity test regime that is similar to the one that currently operates. The measures contained in the bill aim to encourage social and economic participation by treating work force age holders of visas issued for temporary protection in a similar way to Australian nationals of work force age; that is, they will be required to be self-reliant and to fulfil a mutual obligation to the Australian community.In my electorate of Riverina there are the towns of Griffith and Leeton. It is a wonderful feeling to represent a multicultural community that looks to entirely assimilate people who have been placed in a community. Not only that, it looks to encourage people to enjoy great communication and to experience a feeling of camaraderie. Having a measure like this in place provides an extra example of where people, such as those who are currently living in my electorate—people who do not have the capacity to work or the ability to participate in community affairs and relationships—have been able to participate and become a primary part of our community. An entire process takes place in Griffith and in Leeton; that is, the assimilation of those new members of our society who have come from other countries and who want to make Australia a meaningful place to call home.The measure also reinforces community support for our humanitarian immigration program. Encouraging temporary protection visa, TPV, holders to take part in the community allows each individual to establish their confidence and assists in easing the way for people who are settling into a new environment. My dedicated Riverina residents who participate in the resettlement of refugees welcome these types of initiatives that better assist them and provide long-term benefits to the new members of our society. Other Newstart allowance conditions relate to industrial action and seasonal work, and moving to an area of lower employment prospects will also apply. The benefits offered through this bill are enormous, particularly for an electorate like mine.Special benefit is a unique payment provided under the Social Security Act 1991. While all other income support payments provided under the SSA have conditions—including being a full-time student, unemployed, incapacitated for work or a sole parent—the special benefit does not. The special benefit, together with unemployment and sickness benefits, was first introduced under the Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Act and was aimed at persons who did not qualify for those benefits and were also ineligible for age, invalid, widow or service pensions. In the 58 years since the special benefit was introduced, it has provided many people and families of all backgrounds with financial assistance and support through difficult times. The payment was aimed at allowing flexibility of provision, recognising the myriad of different and often quite unique circumstances of individuals and small groups in the community who do not otherwise qualify for one of the mainstream payments under the SSA but who are suffering hardship and are in need. Special benefits have been provided where a person has been seen as being in need of support, not being able to access any other payment, not being able to provide for themselves, not being reasonably able to obtain support from any other source and being likely to be in significant hardship without support. Some of the more common categories of special benefit have evolved over time in response to the identified needs of people who cannot otherwise qualify for payments under the Social Security Act. These include claimants in hardship, victims of a natural disaster, repatriated distressed Australians and carers providing short-term care who are unable to obtain any other means of support. These categories are in place to best help Australians and those in our protection, of all backgrounds, in difficult situations. The Commonwealth government is committed to ensuring the welfare of each and every Australian, new and old.The government introduced a new class of visa called the temporary protection visa with the passage of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill. The original act was mainly aimed at Kosovo refugees who were in Australia seeking protection following the devastating events that occurred in their country, but use of the new visa class was later expanded to include those persons who were unauthorised arrivals and who were assessed as meeting refugee classification requirements. This new visa class centred on persons who were unauthorised arrivals and who were found to be refugees. The TPV is, as we know, provided for only three years in the first instance and is a vital link to our community.In the 2000-01 budget, the government announced several measures as part of the unauthorised arrivals in Australia package aimed at reducing the incentives for unauthorised arrivals. But this is an incentive for unauthorised arrivals to gain an understanding of the Australian ethos, to understand the Australian way of life and to understand the community focus that they will have to assimilate into at some time. It also gives the community an ability to connect with—and to react and relate to and experience—what our new Australians have to offer us as a community.The stated aims of all of these measures have been to encourage social and economic participation by treating these holders of work force age in a similar way to Australian nationals of work force age by requiring them to be self-reliant and to fulfil a mutual obligation to the Australian community. And so they should be given equal status and equal opportunity. Even if it is only a temporary protection visa, even if they are only here for a period of three years, they should be treated as though this is their home. They should be able to feel that they are not being isolated and removed from the general practices of Australia—after all, that is why they have opted to come to this country: to be treated like ordinary Australian people.The aims of the bill include reinforcing community support for the humanitarian immigration program that runs so well in the Riverina, and particularly in the city of Wagga Wagga. The treatment of refugees placed in this role needs to be upgraded. This is a great opportunity for our communities to be able to become one with the new members of our society. Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs figures show that 8,441 TPVs were issued to June 2002. Of these, Centrelink data shows that 4,741 principal applicants receive special benefits. These people do not want to be treated differently. They do not want to receive special benefits and not be able to give something in return. They have come to this country to develop and to give something. They are entitled to be treated as Australian citizens whilst they are here. Figures show that the remaining 3,700 are either dependants of another applicant, have gained employment or are supporting themselves through other means. This can only continue to be positive and fair. We will work to create another generation of Australians who realise the value of working hard to create a comfortable and successful life and the many benefits that that brings—including a feeling of satisfaction, including a feeling of inclusion, including a feeling of being classified and recognised as an Australian whilst living here in this country. This bill proposes that the special benefit measures that were re-announced in the 2001-02 budget should commence from 1 January 2003. It is the government's intention to expose this group of non-resident TPV holders to as full a range of activity testing and mutual obligation requirements as any resident Australian would be asked to undertake. This includes the very wide range of activities that a Job Network employment placement provider may ask a job seeker to undertake. That will expose them to aged care, to child care and to a whole host of volunteer organisations—Riding for the Disabled or Scouts, for example—and it will involve them in many worthwhile community projects that will give them a sense of belonging and a sense of place.The feature of the bill is schedule 1, which proposes to place into the SSA provisions the requirement that TPV holders who are unauthorised arrivals have to comply with the work search activity test and mutual obligation requirements of Newstart allowance and Youth Allowance to qualify for special benefits. Coming from an area with a decided multicultural population which has come to live together as one community with much to offer one another, I support and commend this bill to the House as a way in which our communities can learn in a better manner how to live as one and can learn that no-one should be treated any differently from anyone else in this nation.13:42:007954Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—When listening to the previous speaker, the member for Riverina, with these slogans about equal opportunity, equal status, feeling at home, friendship et cetera, it really reminds you of George Orwell's 1984 or of some of the slogans of the Soviet or Nazi governments when they had, above concentration camps, the sign `Work is joy'. Quite frankly, I do not know whether it is that the member for Riverina has not read the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002, whether she has come in here with a prewritten speech from the minister's office or whether she is just trying to fool the parliament. In reality, the last thing this bill will do is make these people equal. That is the last thing it does. The bill seeks to impose a rigid system of mutual obligation and activities testing on unauthorised arrivals of work force age who have been issued with a temporary protection visa or similar visa and are in receipt of special benefits.I rise to speak both in my capacity as shadow minister for citizenship and multicultural affairs and as someone who has a very large number of TPV holders living within their electorate. I notice that the previous speaker was very good when it came to national figures, but she was not very good at telling us how many TPV holders there are in her electorate. I can tell her straight away that there are very few. When the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs introduced the bill he made a noticeably brief and somewhat cryptic speech. He claimed:The measures contained in the bill aim to encourage social and economic participation by treating work force age holders of visas issued for temporary protection, humanitarian or safe haven purposes in a similar way to Australian nationals ...And that was the rhetoric of the previous contribution—that is, that they will be required to be self-reliant and to fulfil a mutual obligation to the Australian community. The measure will also reinforce community support for the humanitarian immigration program. The minister thus attempted to portray it as a simple equity measure to make these people more equal to Australians. At the same time he carefully made sure that he differentiated them from the rest of Australia. Clearly, with the rhetoric the whole way through about the Australian way and equality with Australians he was basically trying to say that they have some privileges at the moment.It is interesting to note that the bill gives effect to a budget measure that was first announced by the government in May 2000—almost 2½ years ago. It certainly cannot be accused of undue haste in the matter or of urgency. I also note that even the government's own figuring, as set out in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, makes no claim whatsoever that the change will result in any net savings to the budget once the implementation costs are taken into account. It is impossible to debate the bill without considering the broader context of the temporary protection visa system. Prior to October 1999, unauthorised arrivals who made successful protection claims in Australia were entitled to permanent residence, family reunion rights and access to settlement assistance, such as free English classes from AMEP. Minister Ruddock announced the new arrangements for such arrivals via the TPV system on 13 October 1999. In brief, these changes entail the granting to successful onshore protection claimants of a three-year temporary visa without access to settlement services and without associated family reunion rights. These arrangements were further tightened last year in the context of the Tampa affair. I think the government's initiative with regard to temporary visas is a step in the right direction. I notice that one of the more informed writers on the refugee debate, Peter Mares, in a human rights journal recently made the point:While seeking to forge return agreements, we must also recognise the conditions in a source country may be so deplorable that no person can reasonably return there. Afghanistan is an obvious case in point. To address this issue we need a new visa category for people who do not fit the definition of the refugee under the 1951 Convention, but who cannot, in good conscience, be returned to their homeland. Most European countries have a category of this type. ... These `humanitarian' visas could initially be one-year temporary visas, but could become permanent after that time if conditions in the home country failed to improve.I, for one, understand a lot of the thinking behind the government's policy. It does allow a country to look at the situation as it develops in these people's homelands to see whether it is safe enough for people to return in a few years et cetera. The record shows that Minister Ruddock defended the October 1999 measures purely on one basis. In the words of his media release at the time, the minister said he believed these initiatives would `go a long way to solving the problems of forum shopping and removing incentives for unauthorised arrivals'. Bluntly, it was about one thing only: trying to deter unauthorised arrivals to this country—unsuccessfully, as it turns out. The establishment of the TPV system had nothing to do with making them more self-reliant or placing them on the same footing as Australian nationals of work force age, or of encouraging them to `fulfil a mutual obligation to the Australian community'. It had one design: to discourage attempts to enter the country. So all this twaddle today about how we are going to make them equal, how we love them all and how we are going to make them feel at home really does not stack up against the minister's rhetoric of the time.Personally, I have long supported the objective of discouraging unauthorised arrivals. I support an orderly refugee humanitarian program that is not dictated by the activities of people smugglers. I make the point on the way through that it is of concern that we have a system in this country where people seem to be concerned only about people in detention. We rarely have people showing any passion about people who wait for three to four years, as many of the families in my electorate have done, to have their claims processed in New Delhi or Islamabad. Some are killed, raped or murdered while other people are facilitated through a system of unauthorised arrival. If you look at the statistics, the reality in this country is that there is a bias in favour of those people who have come by boats with regard to processing and successful cases because the department realises it is politically unpopular to hold people in detention so they had better give them the benefit of the doubt. The same benefit of the doubt is not given to claimants overseas, nor by the UNHCR, if you look at the figures. Some of the so-called refugee support groups in this country might be better to spend their time worrying about the processing overseas and the fact that people there are pushed to the point where they are so frustrated that they then do indulge in unauthorised entry.My views about that and about mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals are on the public record. That is not what we are debating today, and nothing the opposition raises in connection with this bill is designed to undermine any of that. We do, however, need to take stock of the TPV system. No other single policy issue is raised with me more frequently when I visit migrant welfare agencies around the country or talk to state, territory or local government representatives. People do not raise refugee detention with me at most of these migrant resource centres; they raise the poverty, the exclusion and the treatment of TPV holders. These are people who our system has decided do have a claim. These are the people who we have said are not fraudulent. These are the people who this government or its department says are worthy of support. The government has advised me that some 8,413 people have been granted temporary protection visas as of 31 May. Over 4,000 of these, or more than 48 per cent, were of Iraqi citizenship. A further 3,500 were Afghans. Since then, a further number of Iraqis and Afghans, who had been detained on Nauru and Mannus Island, have been granted a secondary movement relocation visa, which is a new temporary protection visa category. The government tells me that of the SMR visas issued up to 6 September, over 80 per cent had been issued to people who were the children or partners of TPV holders who were already in Australia. I raise this background to highlight the fact that we are dealing with a group of people who are overwhelmingly from two countries—Iraq and Afghanistan—and who have disproportionately settled in a small number of local government areas in Sydney and Melbourne, such as Auburn in my electorate. I join with the Premier of New South Wales in expressing continuing concern about the inability of the government to use settlement policies to accomplish a more diverse spread of humanitarian refugees in this country. What has essentially happened because of this government's policies and its failure to do anything about settlement is that these populations are concentrated essentially in the impoverished suburbs of Western Sydney. When they come up with this kind of policy, a few Centrelink offices will suffer the huge burden of the problem in dealing with this proposal. These people have limited entitlements and no clarity about their medium-term future in Australia. Through no fault of their own, they generally speak little or no English and have poor educational accomplishments. They are at grave risk of becoming a highly visible suburban underclass. I accentuate again the words of the New South Wales Premier—that it is in limited parts of urban Sydney and Melbourne. It is about time the government tackled this problem.When the government introduced the TPV system, it determined that they could never be entitled to the Newstart allowance for the unemployed unless they were subsequently granted a permanent residence visa. This, however, is something of a sleight of hand on the government's part, because they are in fact entitled to the special benefit if they are unable to obtain employment and cannot support themselves financially. Considering the fact that the kinds of people who are entering Australia do not have employment networks, often do not know people already in jobs, lack English skills et cetera, the data are not surprising. The government's data to the Senate estimates committee, as of 14 June this year, show that over 56 per cent of all TPV holders were receiving the special benefit from Centrelink. This starkly reveals the difficulties most of them are experiencing in the contemporary labour market. This bill proposes to require all such people to meet Centrelink's mutual obligation and activity test requirements from 1 January 2003. Let me briefly outline these requirements so we are clear what is involved.According to Centrelink, mutual obligation requirements include participation in one or more of the following: part-time employment or community participation through Work for the Dole; community work; participation in Green Corps projects; enlistment in the Defence Reserves, which is something TPV holders are legally not allowed to do as they are not Australian citizens; training, such as an approved language literacy or numeracy course, other part-time study, Job Search training or completion of the New Apprenticeships Access Program; or participation in assistance programs such as intensive assistance or the Jobs Pathway Program from the Job Network. In addition, the activity test requirements involve: actively seeking work; accepting suitable work offers; attending all job interviews; attending approved training courses and programs; not leaving a job, training course or program without good reason; disclosing to Centrelink any earned income; and entering into and carrying out a preparing for work agreement. Any breach of the above requirements will entail a reduction in or suspension of the special benefit in line with Centrelink's general breaching policies. The problem we have with all this is that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has determined that TPV holders must not receive, at taxpayers' expense, many of the courses and programs of work related assistance that Centrelink would normally demand of an unemployed person. So the government is saying to these TPV holders, `Come down to Centrelink. We are going to put a gun to your head. We are going to suggest that you do an English course, but we are not going to pay for it.' These people are on extremely low incomes from special benefits, they have to reveal any other income that they receive—and it is very scant anyway, because they are essentially, by nature of their English skills and employment background, unemployable—and they are going to be told to undertake all these courses and do all these things to improve their employability but that it is going to have to come out of their pockets.Specifically, the minister has determined that they cannot access free English classes through AMEP if they do not have the functional English ability that is essential in virtually all workplaces. We know the reality in Australia and in the world these days is that, without training and education, you have very limited chances of employment. The jobs that these people might have worked in at James Hardy, Bradford Insulation or other plants in my electorate have long disappeared. The minister has determined also that they cannot access assistance from the Job Network, other than basic computer based training. These people are not allowed to be helped by the department in obtaining employment, apart from being shown how to operate a computer. These are arguably the very forms of assistance that are most likely to make them job ready and in any way attractive to potential employers. The government is saying that it is going to compel these people to come down to the office. It is going to haul them in and tell them how they might improve their employability so they can get a job, and basically they are not going to be able to fill these requirements. At the same time, the government is saying that it is totally illegal for them to get this kind of assistance. It is not a thought out policy.This brings us to the crux of the opposition's concerns about this bill. We are basically asking a limited number of Centrelink offices to negotiate preparing for work agreements with highly disadvantaged job seekers while the government continues to insist that the people concerned cannot access the assistance that is most likely to assist them. I fear this will generate a substantial degree of frustration on the part of both Centrelink staff and the clients concerned. As I said, these people are concentrated in a limited number of municipalities in Sydney and Melbourne. Those Centrelink offices are going to bear the massive brunt of this rather ill-considered proposal. They are going to be telling people that it would be a good idea if they had this or that skill or if they did this or that to improve themselves, but that they are not going to be given any assistance to do it. They do not have $20,000 in their pockets to start enrolling in courses.Equally I note that, at the same time as we are debating this bill, the government is conducting a rather dodgy review of migrant settlement services in this country. Interestingly, Minister Hardgrave has determined that the entitlements of TPV holders are outside the terms of reference of that review. So what about the rhetoric from the member for Riverina about how everyone is going to be happy and live on a holiday island for the rest of their lives and how everything is going to be great for TPV holders? The government is so embarrassed by the situation of these people in this country, that suburbs of Sydney are becoming impoverished, that deprivation is continuing and that there are crime problems because people cannot get employment that it will not allow this inquiry to even investigate the situation of TPV holders. Minister Hardgrave says that he will ignore any submissions advocating that TPV holders receive access to normal settlement services such as English classes, yet in this bill the government is telling people that they should do it. We have Minister Anthony saying that he wants to prod TPV holders to be more active in their efforts to search for jobs at the very same time that Minister Hardgrave is telling ethnic communities that he is not interested in hearing about the problems that face TPV holders in the community. So there is the fundamental contradiction in government policy: a populist call that TPV holders should be persecuted—kick their heads in, push them around and increase the requirements on them—while another minister is saying, `I am going to have an inquiry into settlement services, but I am going to make sure that we do not assist these people in any way to accomplish what Minister Anthony says is a good idea.'Finally, I reiterate that the issue we hear about time and time again in migrant resource centres around this country is the question of TPV holders' rights. These social workers, these community workers and these popularly based organisations that the government is seeking to replace with religious and corporate efforts say to me and to others in the opposition that the issue they face daily is deprivation of TPV holders—that they are becoming a substratum in Australian society. Whilst I have no dispute whatsoever with the concept of a temporary visa until we see if the situation in their country improves, we should be more intelligent about the possibility that some of these people are going to live in this country permanently. We are going to have them sitting around for three, four or five years not getting English skills, becoming increasingly unemployable and living in communities where the poverty is so great, and this government makes no effort at all to do what the member for Riverina says it is doing—that is, improving their settlement in this country.The opposition feels that this measure in no way attempts to make temporary protection visa holders part of Australia. It actually seeks to exclude them, in line with the policy of the minister for immigration, who has just entered the chamber. He is very determined, as he has been for a number of years, to make sure that TPV holders find Australia extremely unattractive. That was the nature of his statement when this was first introduced, that is the policy he has implemented, and anything from Minister Anthony is totally irrelevant to this process.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.Ministerial Arrangements795814:00:007958Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPActing Prime Minister10—I inform the House that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent from question time today, as they are travelling to Bali to attend a memorial service later today with families and friends of the victims. They are expected to return to Australia tomorrow. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has accepted the Prime Minister's invitation to travel with them. I will act as Prime Minister and will answer questions on the Prime Minister's behalf. The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I can also inform the House that the Minister for Trade will be absent from question time today and all of next week. The minister is travelling to Bolivia to attend the Cairns Group ministerial meeting. He will continue on to Mexico for the APEC joint ministerial meeting and the APEC CEO summit. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf today.Questions Without Notice7958795814:01:007958Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Acting Prime Minister, can you inform the Australian people of the arrangements for Sunday's national day of mourning for the victims of the terrorist attack in Bali?7959Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for her question. Sunday has been declared a day of national mourning for those Australians and others who have died in the horrific terrorist attack in Bali. Australians will celebrate this in their own chosen ways. But the government has asked that Australia observe a minute's silence at 12 noon, Australian Eastern Standard Time. I am sure that television and radio services will mark the moment in an appropriate way. Also, as a simple unifying tribute, I encourage the wearing of a piece of wattle during the day and, where possible, the planting of wattle seeds as a personal gesture of remembrance and reflection. Church leaders of all denominations and religious leaders of all faiths have indicated that they will be conducting services as part of the national day of mourning. The Prime Minister will be attending morning service at St Paul's Church in Manuka. I am sure that many sporting clubs, including many football clubs, will also choose to spend the day of mourning together to remember people from their own teams or to remember people from their own competitions. The Australian national flag will be flown at half-mast on Sunday on all Commonwealth buildings, and I encourage others to follow suit. This has been a terrible loss to the people of Australia, to the victims and to their families. All of us have been touched and all of us are diminished by it. I encourage all Australians to take part in the day of national mourning.795914:03:007959Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Acting Prime Minister, would you please inform the House of the situation in Bali, including any update on Australian casualties? What developments have there been in the efforts to bring those responsible to justice?7959Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—We now hold serious concerns for 119 Australians. We have a high degree of certainty that 30 are dead but, as has been indicated, the nation should prepare itself for a mounting death toll. Our Ambassador to Indonesia, Rick Smith, is on his way to Bali to take charge of the operation in Bali. We now have 24 federal and state police working on this in Bali, and we have another 16 arriving today in order to assist. I can understand the frustration of loved ones and relatives about identifying the victims and bringing their remains home. In fact, I met a grieving father at Sydney airport last night. I would ask the relatives, in their time of grief, to also bear in mind, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that we need rigorous Interpol standards to ensure that no mistakes are made in identifying the victims. The AFP has advised that human remains are still being found at the scene. The identification in relation to the Childers backpackers disaster took two weeks, so it could still be some considerable time before there has been full identification.A missing persons registration centre was established in Bali yesterday, which is collecting personal details of those missing and, where possible, DNA samples from family members, and facilitating counselling. Yesterday the government announced a reward of $2 million to encourage the provision of information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for the terrorist attack. Medical assistance is proceeding in terms of medical supplies, cash grants and, still, evacuation, with one Balinese patient evacuated to Darwin last night. As I have already indicated, there will be a memorial service on Sunday for the day of mourning, which Australians are encouraged to take part in. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will be attending a memorial service this afternoon as part of their trip to Bali.795914:06:007959King, Catherine, MPMs KING00AMRBallaratALP00—My question is to the Attorney-General, representing the Minister for Justice and Customs. Attorney, could you inform the House how the government is coordinating forensic resources, in particular fingerprint, dental and DNA analysis, to ensure that the identification of victims of the terrorist attack in Bali occurs as quickly as possible?7959Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Ballarat for her question. As I told the House yesterday, the scale of the operation in Bali is really quite enormous, and as the Acting Prime Minister has just indicated the disaster victim identification task is also enormous. Over and above what I reported yesterday, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice and Customs have concluded their discussions with authorities in Indonesia. Out of that trip has come an important agreement to establish a joint investigation and intelligence team to investigate the bombings. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the directors-general of ASIO and ASIS have remained in Indonesia to finalise the arrangements to ensure that the very best Australian and Indonesian expertise is applied to this task. The Federal Police and the Indonesian National Police enjoy a well-established and highly cooperative relationship; they have worked together for many years. Evidence of that relationship can be seen through the memorandum of understanding which was signed in Perth on 13 June this year. The MOU provides the basis for the close working relationship enjoyed by the Indonesian National Police and the AFP in combating transnational crime in general, and it identifies terrorism as a key focus for these collaborative efforts.The latest advice I have received—it is very recent—is that there are now 58 AFP and ASIO officers and state and territory police in Bali assisting the Indonesian National Police with the many aspects of the investigation. As I indicated yesterday, there are among them disaster victim identification experts. I understand another contingent of officers, numbering something like 16 and mainly comprising disaster victim identification experts, is to join the others in Indonesia shortly. The numbers in the AFP and ASIO teams are likely to change on a daily basis or even more than once a day, as different aspects of the investigation are focused upon.As I said yesterday, the scale of this investigation is monumental. It will be assisted by travellers providing information. Already thousands of travellers returning from Bali have been interviewed by the police, and thousands of questionnaires provided by the police have been collected. We have great confidence in the skills of the AFP, state and territory police and ASIO officers who are engaged in this task. We are very grateful as a government for their efforts and we wish them well in what must be an awful task.796014:10:007960Hartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER00AMMCowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the minister aware of media reports that Australia's travel advice did not reflect warnings contained in a US embassy notice issued in Jakarta on 26 September 2002 and the US global warning of 10 October 2002?7960Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question. The question he raises is an important one, and this whole issue is a very legitimate one. After the events of 12 October, one of my first tasks was to review the travel advisories that had been sent out by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in cooperation with the embassy in Jakarta. I have also taken time to look at travel advisories sent out by other governments.To understand this issue of travel advisories, first of all it is important to appreciate that there are essentially three different types of travel advice. Firstly, there is the global advice; regardless of what country somebody may be proposing to visit, there is advice for them. In Australia we call that the Travellers Bulletin, on global issues. The United States has an equivalent called the Worldwide Caution and issued by the State Department. Secondly, Australia has specific Travel Advices, and the United States has an equivalent, although they are not called travel advices but Travel Warnings. Thirdly, our embassies issue from time to time Embassy Bulletins, and the United States embassies do the same thing. Their equivalents to the embassy bulletins are called Embassy Notices.On 20 September, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issued a travel advice for Indonesia that specifically referred to the general threat of bombing by terrorists. Bearing in mind that we had no information about the bomb attack that did take place, of course there was no reference to that specific incident, tragically—and of course, if anyone had known about it in advance, then in our case we would have moved heaven and earth to ensure that Australians were nowhere near Bali and particularly that part of Bali. In any case, on 20 September a travel advice for Indonesia was issued which did refer to the general threat of bombings by terrorists. I think the Prime Minister referred to this yesterday. I will remind the House: Bombs have been exploded periodically in Jakarta and elsewhere in the past, including areas frequented by tourists. Further explosions may be attempted. In view of the ongoing risk of terrorist activity, Australians should maintain a high level of personal security awareness at all times.I had a look at the equivalent travel advice issued by the Americans. Prior to 12 October, their most recent travel warning specific to Indonesia was on 23 November 2001, so it was rather old. Actually, I was surprised that it had been so long since they had issued an update. In relation to their embassy notices, on 26 September 2002 the American Embassy in Jakarta issued an embassy notice that stated:Americans and Westerners should avoid large gatherings, and locations known to cater primarily to a Western clientele such as certain bars, restaurants and tourist areas.I have noticed that some in the media have reported that the Americans had specifically referred to Bali. I met with the American Ambassador in Jakarta yesterday, and he explained to me—and this is borne out by an examination of their documents—that neither in their travel advice nor in their embassy notices was there any reference at all to Bali.On 3 October, the Australian Embassy in Jakarta issued an embassy bulletin, which as I said is more or less the equivalent of the American embassy notice, and it was somewhat similar to the American embassy notice. It said:As in the past around religious holidays, militant groups may conduct intimidatory activity against night clubs, bars and other places where expatriates are known to gather.... ... ...Bombs have been exploded periodically in Jakarta and elsewhere in the past, including areas frequented by tourists. Further explosions may be attempted.From 3 to 4 October, I know, was a period of a religious holiday; 12 October was not, as far as I know, a religious holiday. We are coming into the period of Ramadan, but this did refer to `around religious holidays'. It makes, of course, very similar points to the American embassy notice.In relation to the worldwide advisory, the Australian travel bulletin—or, as the Americans say, the worldwide cautions—on 10 October the Americans issued a worldwide caution which was focused on a specific threat made against American interests as contained within the then most recent Osama bin Laden tape—which members will recall, I am sure, because it was substantially in the media. The bin Laden threat was reflected in the US caution of 10 October and a US FBI alert of 9 October, and these were then referred to in a DFAT travel bulletin, which is the equivalent of the US worldwide caution, issued on 11 October Australian time. It was entitled, `Terrorist threat to United States interests in United States and overseas'. That bulletin was, as these bulletins are, posted on the DFAT web site. It said:In light of the warnings by the United States Government, Australian travellers and residents overseas are advised to remain alert to their own security.The US caution was global so, of course, it covered every country in the world. It did not single out Indonesia, any part of Indonesia or any other country, let alone any specific province or city.With regard to the threat to Australia's interests in Indonesia, DFAT had already issued a travel advice on 20 September which specifically referred to maintaining personal vigilance. As I have pointed out, an embassy bulletin of 3 October warned about intimidatory activity against nightclubs and the like. As the House will recall, yesterday the Prime Minister said that, with regard to the intelligence, there was a generic threat to a number of cities in provinces in Indonesia. This included Jakarta, Yogyakarta, Kalimantan, Lombok, Bali and Sumatra. I think the opposition saw this intelligence material last night—at least, I think the Leader of the Opposition did. He, of course, is not here today, but I think he saw this intelligence material last night. The point here is that this threat was not only non-specific and broad based across Indonesia but also, importantly, contingent upon the arrest of certain individuals. Of course, those arrests did not occur and have not occurred. That, to the best of our knowledge at the moment, is the full extent of the Australian intelligence that might refer to threats in Bali. But, as the Prime Minister said yesterday—and, I think, very sensibly—all the intelligence material is being referred to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and he will obviously examine the material to see whether the intelligence community and my department have responded appropriately.But, as the US government stated on 15 October, the United States itself had no specific information about the planned bombing in Bali and that, of course, if it had had such information, it would have issued a public warning regarding the potential danger. It did not issue such a warning; indeed, one United States Embassy staff member who I met a day or so ago had been holidaying in Bali on the weekend of 12-13 October at the time the bombing took place.As the Prime Minister has stated in the House, like the US government, the Australian government had no specific information. Having reviewed the warnings contained in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's travel advice of 20 September, the embassy's Jakarta bulletin of 3 October and the DFAT travel bulletin—the global travel bulletin—on 11 October and having looked at the intelligence material, I think they were appropriate on the basis of the information that was available at the time. I choose my words carefully, because the great tragedy here is that no intelligence agency, to the best of our knowledge—including, by the way, the Indonesian intelligence agencies—had any foreknowledge of this bomb attack taking place. Obviously, if we had had that foreknowledge, we would have been able to take appropriate action.Mr Speaker, I apologise for taking a bit of time on this issue, but I am sure honourable members are interested in it; it is a reasonable and important question. Let me just say in conclusion that today I have announced that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's travel advisory will be upgraded for Indonesia yet again. The decision to amend our travel advice today is based on disturbing new information of generic threats to Australians and Australian interests in Indonesia. We have been recommending since the Bali atrocity that Australians defer all non-essential travel to Indonesia. We are now recommending that all Australians in Indonesia who are concerned about their security consider departure. In particular, short-term visitors whose presence in Indonesia is non-essential should depart. We urge Australians to exercise extreme caution, particularly in commercial and public areas known to be frequented by foreigners, such as clubs, restaurants, bars, schools, places of worship, and, importantly, outdoor recreation events and tourist areas. The government also strongly advises Australians in Indonesia to monitor carefully developments that might affect their safety. We are also revising our travel advice notices for a range of countries in South-East Asia to highlight the need for vigilance, given the ongoing risk of terrorist activity.Although I was not here yesterday, I understand that the member for Griffith asked the Minister for Trade if a number of travel advisories could be tabled from a number of different countries. Let me apologise to the House that it has not been possible yet to get the back copies of the British and, I think, Canadian travel advisories. We have to get those from the post because they have been replaced by new travel advisories and the web site does not have the old travel advisories on it that the department can find. What we have been able to get is the United States travel advisories, which I know will be of particular interest. I am certainly happy to table those American travel advisories. I think they will be of substantial interest to the House.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—On indulgence, I thank the minister for what he has just said in relation to the travel advisories from the past. The question to the Minister for Trade yesterday was for past Australian travel advisories for the previous 12 months as well.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister has taken that on notice.796314:23:007963Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, are you aware that there are many injured Australians currently receiving medical treatment in hospitals some distance away from their families and some outside their home states? What steps is the government taking to bring these families together, to provide travel, accommodation and living support so that they can be at the bed sides of their loved one over the months ahead?7963Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I thank the honourable member for Greenway for his question and his obvious concern, as with other members of this place in relation to the families of victims of this tragedy in Indonesia. At the current time, as I have indicated over the last few days in answers to questions, the state, territory and Commonwealth health authorities are working closely together. Our primary aim, as I am sure all honourable members would understand, is to provide for those victims who have been injured, and in some cases quite severely injured, and to provide for the treatment of burns and a range of other injuries in relation to those people.One of the other things we are doing is trying to put together a full list of people because, as is well known by honourable members, people with injuries have returned to Australia by commercial flights. It was only those in the most serious situations that returned to Australia by way of the evacuation carried out by the Royal Australian Air Force. We are in the process, in cooperation with states and territories, of trying to provide that full list so that a full range of services can be provided to these people. As for specific details about any assistance for families in those circumstances, that is something which the government would give consideration to, but I will take that aspect of the question on notice and come back to the honourable member.796314:25:007963Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of his visit to Jakarta and Bali?7963Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Can I begin by responding to the remarks made by the member for Griffith at the end of my previous answer. I did not mention it, but I did table the former Australian travel advisories, so obviously we can easily access those.I thank the honourable member for Barker for his question. As the House knows, I came back this morning from Jakarta and yesterday I met in Jakarta with President Megawati and Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda. I also saw the Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs, Bambang Yudhoyono; the Minister for Justice and Human Rights, Yusril Ihza Mahendra; the commander of the Indonesian armed forces, General Sutarto; as well as a number of other people. I was greeted graciously by the President and her ministers, as was Senator Ellison, who travelled with me, and the senior Australian delegation. The House will be pleased to hear that they passed on their deep condolences to the families of the victims of the Bali incident and to the Australian people as well. They showed great concern and grace. While I was in Jakarta I had a sense that in Indonesia there is as great a sense of shock about this incident as there is here in Australia. That sense of shock is carried by everybody, from the President downwards.Obviously one of our key objectives in Jakarta was to ensure that those who are responsible for this simply appalling act are hunted down and brought to justice. I was very encouraged by the commitment given to me by the Indonesian government that they would do all they could to achieve that objective. Between us, we have agreed to establish a joint investigation and intelligence team. That team will be formed under the auspices of the memorandum of understanding on international terrorism, which was signed by the Prime Minister and President Megawati in February of this year. As it has turned out, that memorandum of understanding has been an extraordinarily important and useful framework for going forward on this particular issue.I have instructed senior officials from our intelligence agencies, the Federal Police and my department to remain in Indonesia today to finalise arrangements for the joint team and to ensure that the very best of Australian, as well as Indonesian, expertise is applied to this crucially important task. The establishment of a joint team will formalise the joint investigation that is already under way between Australia and Indonesia through our police and intelligence agencies. We will also hold discussions with other countries which are offering to support this activity, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and Japan. They all have people at the moment assisting in Bali and in Jakarta. While I was in Bali I met with the director of the main hospital in Denpasar, and also with the director of the morgue. In the space of several hours the hospitals, including the private hospitals, in Bali did their very best to deal with an emergency that went way beyond their expectations, way beyond their supplies and way beyond their capacity. I did express on behalf of the Australian people my sincere gratitude for the simply extraordinary efforts of the hospitals, of the doctors, of the nurses and, by the way, of the many volunteers who assisted on the night of the 12th, on the morning of the 13th and beyond. This effort by all those people continues.I think it is very important that Australia does what it can to help the Indonesians who suffered from this disaster as well as, obviously, first and foremost looking after our own people. So I told the hospital and I told others I met within Indonesia that we would provide substantial aid to the hospital to help it replenish medical supplies and to ensure that it has appropriate equipment. I did say while I was there that if there are Indonesians in the hospital who are suffering very greatly and would rather be moved to a hospital in Australia which might have greater capacity to deal with their particular injuries then we would be happy to facilitate that. It is important that we build on the spirit of cooperation that was shown by the people of Bali on the night of the 12th and beyond and that we do what we can to look after them as well to reciprocate their kindness and generosity.I will conclude by saying that one of the things that really struck me in Indonesia— and I have been the foreign minister for six and a half years and have seen some interesting developments in our bilateral relationship over that period—was the outpouring of tributes from the Indonesian people towards Australia and Australians. It might surprise and would certainly please the House to hear that. For example, if you go to the Australian consulate in Bali, there are wreaths laid all across the front of the consulate. There are people coming up the whole time there, laying wreaths and praying. Last night when I was in Jakarta not only did I notice the enormous number of wreaths in front of the Australian Embassy but there was a spontaneous candlelight vigil by Indonesians in front of our embassy. I think this is an event that has brought our two peoples closer together. I think it is a sorrow we both share but on top of that it is a very great determination we both share to bring to justice those people who were responsible for this simply appalling crime.796414:32:007964McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00— My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement to the House yesterday in which he indicated that something significant and tangible should be done in memory of the victims of the terrorist attack in Bali and for the benefit of the people of Bali. Is the government considering, as part of this, a permanent upgrade of hospital services in Bali?7964Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for her question. Yes, one of the things that the government has considered is putting in place some kind of training for medical services and upgrading of medical facilities in Bali, which would provide an ongoing opportunity for doctors to be trained and for treatment to be given. I am not in a position to announce any outcome in relation to that, but that has certainly been one of the matters that the government has been considering.In addition to that, the government has been considering a lasting memorial; if you like, a place of pilgrimage that the relatives and friends of victims, and other Australians, could go to, which would be an acknowledgment of the terrible loss that Australia has suffered. Obviously, while the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are in Bali they will have the opportunity to engage in further discussions, but I can assure the honourable member that that is one of the matters that is under discussion. 796514:33:007965Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister update the House on the efforts of the Australian government to provide medical support for the victims of last weekend's terrorist attack in Bali and their families?7965Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question in relation to these tragic events. I also join at the outset with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his comments and pay tribute to not only the work of health workers in Bali but the magnificent work which has been undertaken by doctors and nurses and a range of other allied health professionals in dealing with the consequences of this tragedy here in Australia. I reiterate in response to the honourable member for Boothby—as I did in an answer to a question from the member for Greenway—that there has been and will be ongoing discussion not only between health ministers at the Commonwealth, state and territory level but obviously also between officials of departments in relation to this particular matter, and that will continue. The liaising with the state health authorities has continued in relation to the availability of hospital treatment and particularly in relation to the burns patients who were victims of the disaster.One of the matters I referred to yesterday was the offer to also treat victims from Indonesia and Bali in Australia if required, and that offer has been made to the Indonesian authorities. To date, I can indicate that one Indonesian victim of this tragedy arrived in Darwin for treatment last night. I am informed as of this morning that that person is in a serious but stable condition. Unfortunately, another Indonesian person who was identified for evacuation to Australia for treatment died before being airlifted to Australia. Ultimately, however, the decision about whether or not further evacuation of Indonesian nationals to Australia will occur is a matter for the Indonesian authorities in relation to their assessment of the situation.I also inform the House that, on behalf of the states and territories, the government has agreed to the Australian Red Cross Blood Service exporting albumin to Bali to treat casualties from the terrorist bombing. I am advised that that will take place shortly. As I said earlier in an answer to a question, the government is also assisting in the compilation of a full list of people who have been admitted to Australian hospitals as a result of injuries received in Bali.It is also significant that there has been significant goodwill and effort displayed by many private companies and community organisations across Australia in assisting the victims of the tragedy in Bali and their families. There are also offers of support and support being provided by pharmaceutical companies and medical supply manufacturers who have provided resources to aid groups for the Indonesian victims of this crisis. I am advised that one pharmaceutical company has agreed to supply to Australian hospitals its latest product—asepsis for the treatment of the Bali victims—for free. As I mentioned yesterday, the Australian Private Hospitals Association, in conjunction with Mayne Health and Catholic Health Australia, have also indicated their readiness to assist with private hospital facilities. As I said yesterday, I understand that that offer has been taken up in relation to the private hospital in Darwin. Overall, I hope that provides some update for honourable members in relation to the response by health authorities across Australia to this tragedy.796514:38:007965Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, is it the case that the travel advisory for Australians travelling to the Republic of Indonesia issued on 20 September was changed on 13 October 2002? Is it also the case that the travel advisories for Australians travelling to Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand which were issued on 10 September 2002 have not since been changed? Minister, could you please outline for the House the government's reasons for leaving these three travel advisories unchanged? 7966Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Lingiari for his question. The short answer is that we have made some changes today on the basis of new information that has become available to us. Let me just explain to the House how the travel advisories work. They are basically adjusted from time to time on the basis of information made available to us from a number of sources, including from intelligence sources—obviously it is sensitive to talk about that, but we must reflect our concerns from intelligence in travel advisories. We also, from time to time, make public statements to try to publicise even more those particular concerns. We also structure our travel advisories very much on the basis of advice given by the post itself—in the case of your question, our High Commission in Kuala Lumpur or our High Commission in Singapore—and they are constantly reviewed by the mission and by the consular officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They upgrade them when their perception is that there may be a change, either positive or negative, in the threat assessment or the circumstances for Australians, obviously on the basis of information made available to them—and, hopefully, they typically get it right. That is not to pretend that they could ever be flawless but, anyway, they endeavour to do that.We have changed our assessments a bit for South-East Asia more generally—so that does include those countries—today, on the basis of our concerns that the security environment there is worse than it was prior to the events of 12 October. But we always try to be cautious. I often say this to the department: `Always try to be very cautious. Try not to take into consideration'—this is a very important point, I think—`diplomatic issues.' In the end, governments quite often say to you—not necessarily in the region; often beyond—`We don't like your travel advisory very much. It's putting people off coming and visiting our country.' And I say to them, `Look, my first responsibility is to the security of the Australian people. I don't think I as the minister should be intervening in just changing the department's travel advisories for some sort of international political reason.' That is why they are or are not upgraded, and it is why there has been some upgrading in South-East Asia today.796614:41:007966Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Would the minister update the House on the assistance being given by the aviation industry and the wider community in the aftermath of the Bali tragedy?7966Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I would like to thank the member for Cook for his question. Qantas have four scheduled services that have operated since Sunday and have provided seven additional services since Monday, bringing home from Bali a total of 2,500 travellers up until midnight last night. They have also transported medical specialists, as well as Qantas's own doctors and nurses. They have waived all conditions on tickets to Australia from Bali. Qantas are also carrying customers from other airlines with tickets from Denpasar to Australia at no additional cost, and there will be no penalty to amend, defer or cancel travel to Bali or Indonesia.Garuda have provided two extra services on Sunday, with increased capacity on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I am advised by Garuda that they have transported approximately 4,000 people to Australia on Garuda flights. They have also transported medical supplies, such as linen, water, crutches and saline solution, to Bali. They have transported 4,000 kilos on Monday, 1,000 kilos on Tuesday, 12,000 kilos on Wednesday and 8,000 kilos today. They have also transported additional supplies for the Balinese hospital, and I understand they are leaving later today. Garuda have also indicated that there will be no penalty to amend, defer or cancel travel to Bali or Indonesia. It is important to note that there are other airlines, obviously, operating to and from Denpasar to other parts of Asia. There is an unknown number of Australians that may have flown out to Singapore or other destinations on other airlines. I have been advised by Qantas that those waiting to come home as soon as possible are being accommodated wherever possible, and Qantas have undertaken to us to provide additional services should it become necessary. In the light of the Minister for Foreign Affairs's departmental reassessment of the travel warning in relation to Indonesia, the issue will be looked at again. Of course, additional evacuation services have been provided for injured victims. The RAAF has been operating C130 and P3 Orion aircraft to assist in medical evacuations. The Royal Flying Doctor Service has also provided interstate medical transport, transferring serious burns patients from Darwin to Brisbane for treatment. I know all Australians are very grateful for the work of both Qantas and Garuda. Qantas, in particular, have indicated that they will do whatever they can to accommodate the concerns of those who are travelling to and from Bali during these difficult moments.796714:45:007967Windsor, Antony, MPMr WINDSOR009LPNew EnglandIND00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Given the concerns that regional communities have in relation to the Crossroads review of higher education, what assurances can you give regional universities that the research component of their work will remain an integral part of their structure?7967Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for New England for his question and recognise that the University of New England is a very good example of a fine regional university. It specialises in research in beef, wool and rural futures amongst other things. In reviewing Australian higher education and thinking about the role it will play in driving our economic and social development, including our engagement in Asia, one of the key things the government is looking at is research. There will be $2.77 billion invested by the Australian government this year in research in Australian higher education. I can certainly reassure the House that absolutely nothing will be done to undermine the role of research that is undertaken in regional universities. In particular, we are determined to see that research is of a very high quality and that it serves the interests and the social and economic wellbeing of people in those regional communities. Out of this reform process I put it to the House that universities and campuses in regions of this country will be very significant winners.796714:46:007967Ciobo, Steven, MPMr CIOBO00AN0MoncrieffLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister outline to the House, the Australian government's humanitarian response to the emergency medical needs of the victims of the terrorist attacks in Bali?7967Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I thank the member for Moncrieff for his question. As indicated previously to the House and announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Australia's chief contribution to the humanitarian aid has been the $300,000 emergency assistance to Indonesia's health services in Bali, consisting of a $200,000 grant to the Indonesian Red Cross and related medical services, and around another $100,000 worth of medical consumables, including intravenous fluids, antibiotic injections and sterile bandages that have been requested. AusAID, the Australian government's international aid agency, is being informed by Australia's embassy officials in Indonesia as to the country's humanitarian response to emergency aid arising from this attack. In turn, AusAID is providing advice to Australian government departments on appropriate medical support, including the importance of checking with the authorities in Bali if the items and services are needed and can be utilised.Initial Australian funded medical supplies arrived on a Qantas flight and additional flights are anticipated. Items that have been provided include sterile bandages, IV fluids, analgesics and burns creams, which have been dispatched to hospitals. I also understand the Australian government is exploring a request from the Indonesian plastic surgery foundation for essential equipment. If this is endorsed by the Indonesian authorities, it will be supplied.We are continuing to monitor the situation closely, including the need for additional humanitarian items. Considerable quantities of medical supplies are arriving in Bali from private contributions and other donors. The largest quantities are actually coming from Australia. There is a real risk of inappropriate items swamping the Bali services, and refrigeration of perishable items is an issue. I understand that with Indonesia's own response and that of other donors and private contributions, additional material is not warranted at precisely this time. Many Australians are asking themselves the very real question: what can I do and how can I help in this circumstance? One way in which they can help, if they are able to, is by making a cash donation. This can be done through a number of appeals such as the Australian Red Cross appeal line, which people can contact on 1800 811 700, or the Overseas Pharmaceutical Aid for Life in Adelaide, which is accepting cash donations as well. There are also obviously a number of other national teams overseas, but this is one way in which Australians can contribute in this circumstance.I will add one further piece of information which really responds to the question asked to me earlier by the member for Greenway. In response to his question about travel and accommodation, the government will pay air fares and accommodation costs to enable Australians injured in Bali and recovering in hospital in Australia to be reunited with family members. This is for families who live a long way from hospitals where their injured relatives are being treated and where they would have difficulty paying for the air travel and accommodation. These matters are being coordinated through the Department of Family and Community Services and details of the ex gratia payment will be appropriately communicated to the victims' families. The Commonwealth is considering other measures that may be put in place to address other domestic issues as they arise. There is a toll-free number which family members can use if they wish to access this facility or obtain further information. For the benefit of members and the Australian public generally, the number is 1800 002 214.796814:51:007968Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the minister's statement earlier in question time today that his department's travel advisory on Indonesia has been upgraded and that this has been based on new intelligence information available to the government. Minister, is the new advisory for Australians now identical in substantive content to that of the United States travel advisory of 14 October? Given that this new travel advisory is based on new intelligence information, could you advise the House when you received that information? Furthermore, will you provide a briefing on that new intelligence information later today?7968Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—It is based on intelligence material that we received a number of hours ago, not a number of days ago. If the honourable member wishes to come and see me this afternoon before we all take off to go home, I would be happy to tell him a bit about it. I think that might be the best way to handle it. I am not aware of whether the Americans have changed their travel advisory today. They obviously changed their travel advisory straight after the events of 12 October. You would naturally expect that. You are asking me to be rather precise about what the Americans know and do not know at what time. But I will tell you that this change to our travel advisory would not have played into the considerations of the American travel advisory at that time—that is, Monday. That information would not have been available to the Americans at that time.796814:53:007968Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney advise the House of the specific legislative measures that the government is proposing to enhance the ability of ASIO to prevent terrorist acts? Given the current security environment, when will those measures take effect? Is the Attorney aware of any alternative views?7968Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Mitchell for his question. The government is committed to doing everything it can to prevent and deter terrorism and to prosecute the evil perpetrators of terrorist acts. Our resolve to do that is unwavering. The recent evil perpetrated against Australians in Bali has brought the threat of terrorism closer to our shores and impacted within those shores. The government has passed a significant package of antiterrorism legislation and thereby created a new suite of terrorist offences. The government has acted to enhance the ability of ASIO to gather intelligence to assist it to deter and prevent terrorist acts. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 was introduced into the House on 21 March this year. The House passed the bill, including a number of government amendments, on 24 September. This bill is a vital element of the government's counter-terrorism legislative package. Let me remind the House of the intent of the bill. It is not designed for law enforcement purposes. New terrorism offences for that purpose were created in other parts of our counter-terrorism package which was passed in June. Our key aim with the ASIO bill is to find out as much as we can about potential terrorist attacks so we can stop them before people are harmed. This bill will strengthen our ability to do just that. At present, ASIO is empowered to seek search warrants, computer access warrants, tracking device warrants, and telecommunications interception warrants and to inspect postal articles. But ASIO cannot obtain a warrant to question a person. In order to prevent and deter terrorist acts it is necessary that ASIO has the tools it needs to gather relevant intelligence. The bill does that by establishing a warrant regime to allow ASIO to question those who may have information relevant to its investigations.The bill has already been examined by two parliamentary committees: the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. The parliamentary joint committee made 15 recommendations for changes to the bill. Both of the committees, which included senior Labor representatives, supported the passage of the bill with amendments. The government took on board the majority of the recommendations, explaining and providing alternatives to those recommendations that could not be accepted because they would have undermined the purpose of the bill. The bill is not about punishing individuals; it is about gathering intelligence. It is about community safety. The government is mindful that we must not erode civil rights in the name of security. That is why the bill has such extensive safeguards. But let us not forget that terrorism is a deadly assault on the basic human rights of people around the world.The Leader of the Opposition acknowledged in the House on Monday that the most effective way to prevent terrorism is to have good intelligence about terrorists and their operations. The intelligence that could be gathered under the bill would be invaluable and is exactly the type of information the Leader of the Opposition knows we need. However, this morning in the Senate, Labor moved a motion to refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee. It is disappointing that the opposition has chosen to delay the legislation by moving a motion to refer it to yet another parliamentary committee. It is important we arm ourselves with strong tools to prevent and deter terrorism. We cannot afford to delay this bill any further. I have repeatedly offered, including in writing, to discuss any remaining concerns with the leadership team of the opposition. Rather than referring it to yet another committee, I invite the opposition, yet again, to sit down and discuss concerns with us. This legislation was not developed on a whim; it was part of a comprehensive government response to needs clearly identified in a review of Australia's counter-terrorism arrangements after September 11. I urge the opposition to reconsider its position and allow us to strengthen ASIO's ability to gather intelligence so we can identify and prevent terrorist acts.796914:58:007969Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Minister, given the nature and experience of counsellors working in the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service, would the government consider opening these services on a temporary basis to survivors of the terrorist attack in Bali?7969Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The government will do everything that is reasonable to be of assistance to the victims of this tragedy. I am aware that other counsellors have been available. There has been no specific request to the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service, but we will be there to assist in any reasonable circumstance. 797014:59:007970Tollner, David, MPMr TOLLNER00AN4SolomonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister advise the House how the government is assisting foreign nationals injured in the Bali bombings to receive medical treatment in Australia?7970Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Solomon for his question. I was returning from overseas when I heard of the tragedy on Sunday morning, and I was in touch with departmental officials that day in expectation that there might well be a requirement for the evacuation of people to Australia for medical treatment and that that would require putting in place arrangements to ensure that people who may have lost documents—as documents may have been destroyed—and people from other countries who may require assistance to access Australia would have special arrangements. The tragedy of it all as it unfolded revealed that there were at least 24 nationalities amongst those who were included in the fatalities. As a result of the need for prompt action, my department responded by streamlining the border processes to facilitate the evacuation of critically injured Australians and non-Australians. I am aware that 15 non-Australians have been evacuated via the military and charter flights that have been in place, including a number of German, British, New Zealand, Canadian, Swedish and South African nationals.As the Minister for Foreign Affairs mentioned, assurances have also been given that we would medivac those Indonesian nationals who were unable to get adequate treatment in Indonesia. As was mentioned earlier by the Minister for Ageing, last night an Indonesian woman was transferred from Bali to the Royal Darwin Hospital, her condition having been seen to be very serious and treatment here being seen as appropriate for that condition. Another person who it was judged would also be able to benefit from such treatment unfortunately passed away before the evacuation could occur.My department has made available additional staff to assist with the government's total response. Three additional immigration officials were sent immediately to Denpasar. They have been assisting the consular-general and other agencies on the ground, as well as assisting with producing appropriate documents. Again, extra staff of my department have been called to Australian airports to ensure that passengers arriving both commercially and through charter flights were processed sensitively and were able to move through the airport as quickly as possible. The special arrangements will continue. We will judge with the Indonesian government if there is a need to respond with further evacuations for medical treatment, and appropriate arrangements will be put in place to achieve that outcome.As one who has not been personally affected, nevertheless one is touched when your own family and their friends are. In the case of my children, friends from school have lost or appear to have lost a loved one. I am sure most Australians have been affected in much the same way. I am gratified, having been in this House for such a long period of time, to see the way in which people have responded—I think appropriately—at a very crucial time in our nation's history.Distinguished Visitors797015:04:007970SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom here as part of the CPA exchange. On behalf of all members of the House, I extend to our guests a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice7970797015:04:007970McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney, I refer to the Prime Minister's statement supported by the Labor opposition that you will be moving to have Jemaah Islamiah listed as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations and then by regulation as a terrorist organisation under Australia's antiterror legislation. Attorney, can you inform the House which other UN listed terror organisations have already been listed under the Australian legislation since it took effect on 22 July this year and specifically whether that list includes al-Qaeda? 7971Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—We are unable to list Jemaah Islamiah because it has not been listed by the United Nations Security Council. As the Prime Minister indicated, we are pursuing the listing of that organisation. It has been on the agenda for some time, but there has been some resistance to it. As to other organisations, the process involves confirming the listing by the United Nations Security Council, an assessment then on the basis of which the Attorney-General is obliged to form an opinion that the organisations are terrorist organisations and then a listing by regulation. That process has been under way and I actually have documents in my office in relation to it. We are proposing to list six organisations but, as I said, because we do not have the power to list of our own motion—except through the United Nations Security Council—we will not be listing Jemaah Islamiah until the United Nations Security Council does.797115:06:007971Smith, Anthony, MPMr ANTHONY SMITH00APGCaseyLP10— My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House of the importance of Australia's relationship with Indonesia and the measures necessary to strengthen our ties, particularly following the Bali tragedy?7971Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, before answering could I welcome to the House a visiting delegation of senior editors from Indonesia. Most major Jakarta daily newspapers are represented and the delegation has been here as part of a program funded by the Australia-Indonesia Institute. It is the fourth in a series of exchange programs involving Indonesian editors.Nothing could have displayed more vividly than the Bali bombing the fact that Indonesia's security is Australia's security and that the security in Asia is an issue for the security of Australia. Australians are involved in working and living all the way through Asia, and Asia's security is their security, it is their lives. We have a legitimate interest, as do the countries of Asia, in the security of the Asian region. This is a problem that we must work on together. In the immediate aftermath of the Bali bombing, we will strengthen our engagements with Indonesia in law enforcement and security. We have a common interest, Australia and Indonesia, in disrupting the organisation of terrorism. We have a common interest in disrupting the financial support of terrorism. We have a common interest in freezing the assets of people who engage in terrorist activity. This is most obvious in our relationship with Indonesia as a result of the Bali events, but it is wider than just Bali—this is now an issue for the whole of our region, and particularly South-East Asia. We are now receiving reports that a bomb has ripped through a department store in the southern Philippines city of Zamboanga, injuring up to 10 people. We do not believe that any foreigners have been injured as a result, and reports are still sketchy. The city is on the southern Philippines island of Mindanao, which has been the subject of a number of terrorist attacks over a long period of time. It brings home to us that, not just in Bali, Indonesia but in the Philippines and in other countries of the region, the common security problems of Asia are the security problems of Australia. Just as we have responded with expertise and just as we have responded with heightened cooperation in relation to Bali, so the government intends to engage in a security sense to heighten our links in the region generally, for the region's sake and also for Australia and Australians' sake. The lesson we take out of this terrible tragedy is to heighten our engagement because Asia's security is Australia's security.797115:10:007971Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the minister's statement earlier today that the new intelligence information on which his new travel advisory is based has been received in the last few hours and therefore obviously was not available to the United States in the preparation of its travel advisory on 14 October. Among other things, that advisory stated: Americans in Indonesia should evaluate their security posture and consider departing the country.Can the minister confirm to the House and the nation that the security situation in Indonesia for Australians has therefore deteriorated since the terrorist attack in Bali on 12 October? Minister, can you also confirm that the new Australian travel advisory is stronger in its direction to Australian nationals than that which existed under the American travel advisory of several days ago?7972Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I do not have the American travel advisory with me, but I can say that as far as the Australian travel advisory is concerned the reason that it has been changed, as I said in answer to a previous question, is that we have had new information made available to us in very recent times. I am not going to get into what information the Americans have or do not have available to them, but this is information that became available to us in recent hours—not in recent days—and on that basis it has changed the assessment of the safety of Australians in Indonesia.I am not responsible for the American travel advisories—that is beyond me. It is a matter for the American Embassy in Jakarta, for Ambassador Boyce and for the State Department to consider what they should do in terms of adjusting their own travel advisories. Other than that, you are getting into the question of what information do we and the Americans exchange with each other, and I am not prepared to canvass that publicly except to say that it is widely known that we exchange an enormous amount of information with each other.797215:12:007972Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister update the House on issues arising from the Bali tragedy in the Workplace Relations portfolio?7972Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Page for his question. Very briefly, I can inform the House that today my department issued a formal advice to Public Service agencies, headed up `Bali tragedy—helping employees'. This advice noted that in some Public Service workplaces there could be some issues arising from the Bali tragedy. Employees could have friends or family who were involved in the tragedy and they might need to take time off. The advice noted that the Australian Public Service had a long tradition of supporting staff who need to be away from work as a result of personal or community emergencies. The advice states:Agencies will no doubt apply these provisions—that is, the provisions of the agreements in the Public Service—flexibly and sensitively to appropriately support employees affected by the tragedy.This is very good advice that my department has provided to Public Service managers. I would commend that advice to Public Service managers and indeed to all employers at this time.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice7972797215:14:007972 Mr DOWNER,MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.4G4Mr DOWNER—My very efficient office has provided me with the American travel warning of 14 October that the honourable member for Griffith asked me about. It starts off by saying:This Travel Warning is being issued to alert Americans to increased security concerns in Indonesia arising as a result of the October 12 bombing of a night club in Bali ... For the interest of the House and in particular the member for Griffith, I table the American travel advisory of 14 October.Miscellaneous797315:15:007973SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Members will recall that I advised the House yesterday of a condolence message following the Bali terrorist bombings from the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Tonga. As the Speaker and on behalf of the House, I advise that I have also received messages of condolence and sympathy from the Ambassador of Kuwait, the Speaker of the Hungarian National Assembly, the Elder of the Macedonian Orthodox Church of Australia and a citizen of the United States Mr F. William Hessmer. I table the messages.Miscellaneous797315:15:007973Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—Mr Speaker, I have to report that earlier today I was required to adjourn the meeting of the Main Committee in accordance with standing order 282 because of disorder arising. The honourable member for Werriwa persisted in disorderly behaviour by defying the chair.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—On indulgence, Mr Speaker, I point out that I misunderstood the nature of the Deputy Speaker's ruling and, accordingly, I withdraw and apologise.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am sure the House understands the gravity and importance of any action which requires the Main Committee to be adjourned. I have discussed this matter with the Deputy Speaker. While the House is aware of the action that the standing orders oblige the Speaker to take normally in instances that have occasioned the adjournment of the Main Committee, given the events of this week and the spontaneous apology of the member for Werriwa I am content simply to indicate to him that he has been extended grace that would not normally be extended and that he ought to bear that in mind in future.Miscellaneous7973797310000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Services Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 2001-02.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents7973Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.18 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:Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Film Finance Corporation Australia Limited-Annual Report 2001/2002-section 36 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. (2 October 2002 / 2 October 2002)Department of Transport and Regional Services International Air Services Commission-Annual Report 2001-2002-section 53 of the International Air Services Commission Act 1992. (12 September 2002 / 12 September 2002)Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance7973797310000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:Australia's concern for the victims of the Bali terrorist attack, and their families, and the urgent need to assist them.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—15:19:007973Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—These are very sad times. We meet here today at the end of a terrible week for so many Australian families who are experiencing the sort of anguish and trauma that none of us here can comprehend. Both here in Australia and in Bali we know that people are suffering some sort of torment, particularly because many of them just do not know what has happened to the people that they love. So many of the stories are just plain heartbreaking. We have seen the stories repeated again and again in the newspapers, on the television and over the radio. There is the story of the terrible circumstances facing one Melbourne mother who has managed, I do not know how, to remain positive in circumstances just too horrible to contemplate. She lost one son to a motor accident and is now facing the possibility that his twin brother did not survive Saturday night's attack. There is the Sydney couple who have been scouring Bali since Sunday trying to find any trace of their daughter, tormented—and there is no other word for it—by not knowing of her fate. I think this is what is facing so many people today and, unfortunately, it is a torment they will continue to face over the next little while. There is the Internet billboard carrying the plaintive appeal: has anyone seen my brother and his girlfriend? I think that really sums up this torment of not knowing. There is the emotional horror suffered by the Sydney man who was preparing to bring the body of his dead wife home only to find that it was not her. Then there are those who have arrived home bearing not only physical scars but, as we have heard particularly from the football teams, many of the far more painful feelings of guilt that they survived while their mates did not. Many more Australians are sharing the same anguish and uncertainty in trying to find out what has happened to those that they love in a place that is very unfamiliar to them. As the tragedy continues to unfold, so of course the devastation caused by Saturday's attack continues to expand. None of us have been immune from that and certainly none of us have been untouched by the horror of it all. Even those fortunate enough to escape physical injury have not been unscathed. My colleague Graham Edwards spoke earlier today about a mother whose son was in Bali about to celebrate his 21st birthday when the attack occurred. Fortunately, he is now home in Perth physically unharmed but deeply traumatised by what he has witnessed and experienced in those terrible hours and days following the attack.Among the stories of despair and devastation, we can acknowledge the wonderful acts of what must be described as heroism, generosity and compassion, values which exemplify the sort of spirit with which we are familiar. There are the seven mates who plunged into the burning remains of the Sari Club to rescue their friend; the injured who, although badly hurt, were more concerned for the welfare of their friends than themselves; and the doctors, nurses and counsellors. There is the plastic surgeon Graham Southwick, who became an accidental hero when his Bali get-away turned into a battle to save the lives of dozens of badly injured people. And there are so many other people—we do need to take this opportunity today to say—who have worked courageously and tirelessly to minimise the casualties and the trauma, and this is continuing even as I speak. They include RAAF personnel, Federal Police officers, and officials from ASIO and the Department of Foreign Affairs; all of the Indonesian emergency workers, doctors and nurses, who have done the best that they can under very difficult conditions—and there is also the generosity of the Balinese people, who have been greatly devastated by this attack as well.Despite the goodwill of those trying to help out, both here and in Bali, the family and friends of those killed, injured and missing feel understandable frustration and anger, and we have to respond to that anger. They are angry that they are not being given the information they want and they are very frustrated by what they certainly see—and it is understandable that they see it this way—as the sort of bureaucracy that is very hard for them to understand in these terrible times. They want to know if their loved ones travelling through Asia were in Bali at the time of the attack. They want to know whether their loved ones are safe, wherever they are, and whether or not they can get home. Those fearing the worst just want to identify the remains of the people they love and bring them home. They want some degree of closure for the terrible grief that they feel. At a time like this, we must all do the very best we can to make sure that families have the answers that they want and get them as quickly as possible.We all recognise that many victims of the attack were young people, and that makes it so much more painful for all of us, both here in the parliament and right around the country. Many members of this House have spoken to the families of the victims and many have been to Bali. Some, I gather, have even been to the Sari Club and Paddy's Bar where these terrible events have taken place, making it that much more possible for all of us to recognise the importance of making sure that this type of attack does not occur again. There is one thing we want to do above all else, in addition to helping those who have been hurt and making sure that the bodies of those who have been killed are safely brought home: we have to find who perpetrated what can only be described as a terrible act of murder and make sure that they are brought to justice. We support very strongly the government's initiatives in working closely with the Indonesian police and the Indonesian government to achieve that. But it is very important in all this, just as with September 11, that we put the blame squarely with the terrorists and the terrorists only. There is no blame to be cast anywhere else. It is particularly important for us to continue to reiterate that this is the work of criminals and fanatics. It is certainly not the work of any person of faith. We all welcome particularly the statements that have been made by the Australian Islamic leaders unreservedly condemning the attacks that have occurred. They, understandably, are as outraged as all of us. I believe that it is important today for us to ask all Australians to continue to show respect for people of all faiths so that, following these terrible events, people here in Australia do not suffer any repercussions—as they certainly do not deserve to suffer any repercussions.We know that the Australian people want maximum effort to go into the task of getting the bodies of people home and tracking down the perpetrators. To this end, we have put forward two positive suggestions to the government both to advance our fight against terrorism and to assist the victims of the terrorist attack. The first suggestion was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday earlier this week in proposing that we have a regional summit on the elimination of terrorism in South-East Asia. I was pleased to hear the Acting Prime Minister's comments in question time when he emphasised the importance of engagement with South-East Asia.The Minister for Foreign Affairs may like to respond to this proposition when he is called on to speak in this debate. As he was not here on Monday, I will mention briefly that the proposal is to have our governments work together to identify and bring to justice those responsible for these terrible acts and then to put in place regional institutional machinery necessary for a continuing campaign against terrorism in our neighbourhood. We know that that will not be done just in one meeting. We know that it will only be done by our governments working together with absolute determination in the period ahead to get rid of this terrible scourge of terrorism from our part of the world.The second proposal which the Leader of the Opposition put forward today was the appointment of a single coordinator-general to direct the Australian relief effort in Bali. We are very pleased to hear that the government has appointed Mr Ric Smith, and that he is on his way to Bali today. I am sure that the families of the victims, and all Australians, will be pleased to know that this has occurred. It is the case that all Australians are doing what they can, even in their small ways, to support the victims of Saturday's attack. At times of adversity we know that Australians do pull together.The important thing to say right now is that we have an opportunity on Sunday to show, particularly to the victims of the attack—many of whom are still in terrible situations in hospital—and also to their families, as well as families who do not know whether their relatives are alive or dead, that we care. We should all come together on Sunday to share in the pain of these terrible events. I encourage as many Australians as possible to get involved on Sunday, on this national day of mourning, to show all of those suffering grief, pain and trauma that we are with them, that we do care and that we are very strongly supporting them.I commend to those families in this very difficult time the thoughts of Gary Redmond, who lost a son and a daughter-in-law in the Swiss canyoning disaster. What Mr Redmond wants to tell all of those people who have lost family or who have lost many wonderful friends is that, no matter how dark the world seems at the moment, they will come through. His view is that their loved ones will always be with them in their thoughts, but there will come a time when the sharp pain of the loss that so many people are feeling now will begin to ease. It is a terribly hard thing to imagine right now, but it can only be eased by people gaining the sort of knowledge that they are desperate to have—to know what has happened to the people who are missing, to be able to identify the people who are dead and whose bodies remain unidentified in Bali. It is for those reasons that we need to offer our comfort and our thoughts to as many people as possible on Sunday, whether it is in the local park, whether it is in a church or whether it is through going to the hospital and showing our support for those who are injured, and of course for those providing the enormous support and treatment for people who are suffering horrific injuries. Whichever way people feel is appropriate, we do need to do exactly that on Sunday, so that people know they are not alone in this very sad time.15:33:007976Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Can I begin by thanking the Acting Leader of the Opposition for moving this matter of public importance, and saying that the government appreciates the remarks she has made. Obviously, we share with her our compassion for the families of the victims and those who were so seriously injured in the devastating attack in Bali on the night of 12 October. As the House knows, I have just been in Bali. While I was there, as I said in question time, I had the opportunity to visit the hospital and meet with the director of the morgue. I also met with some of the families of the victims. It really does not bear telling, because they clearly are suffering enormously; they are in tremendous pain. I think the House would understand that it was an extremely emotional experience for all of us. When you come across people who have lost their sons and daughters, my own perception, as a father, is that there could not be anything worse than losing one of your own children. I think the Acting Leader of the Opposition would understand that as well. You come across this there, and it is absolutely shocking.One of the things that is really striking is how so many of those who have been killed are so young. Not all of them—they vary a bit in age—but an enormous number of them are clearly very young. We know that 30 Australians are dead. We do not know what the total number will be. As the Acting Prime Minister said in question time, we are seriously concerned about 119 Australians who are missing. We found out at the time of September 11 that some of the people on the missing list turned up for all sorts of reasons in different places—because they had not passed on their movements or for whatever reason it may have been. You can imagine that there may be myriad reasons for that. Having said that, in this case we are deeply pessimistic that the number will be way above the 30 confirmed dead so far.The Acting Leader of the Opposition referred to a couple of positive suggestions that the opposition has made for Australia in response to 12 October. Let me just say something about those. First of all, in relation to the idea of a single coordinator, the Prime Minister and I had a talk this morning when I got back. We agreed that the best thing to do would be to send Ric Smith to Bali to coordinate activities better than has been the case so far, not to in any way reflect on those who have been doing a very good job, like Ross Tysoe, our consul general in Bali. He started off with himself and a very small staff, and there was a gigantic tragedy—the largest tragedy Australia has had since the end of the Second World War. Reinforcements have had to go in at a very rapid rate to try to help him and his staff deal with it. Actually, they have done a wonderful job, and so have the volunteers there. It is quite striking how many Australians who live permanently in Bali, as well as people who are just visiting, such as doctors on holiday, came to give support on the night of the 12th, the morning of the 13th and beyond. I met many of them. They looked desperately tired, but they were extraordinarily committed and determined to provide assistance. Ric Smith is the outgoing Australian Ambassador to Indonesia. He was meant to leave the post on Monday and woke up on Sunday morning to hear of the Bali tragedy—I guess he heard on Saturday night or Sunday morning—so his departure has obviously had to be postponed, which is difficult for him and his family. Nevertheless, it is very important that we keep him in the post for the time being. We have moved him down to Bali, initially for approximately 10 days. We will have to wait and see how long he might be required there. It might be longer, but we just do not know at this stage. That should improve the overall coordination there.The second suggestion by the opposition was a summit on terrorism. I was informed that the Prime Minister had said that he thought it was an interesting idea, and it certainly is. However—in a sense, fortuitously—the APEC summit is meeting very soon. As I think honourable members would know, the Minister for Trade has already left for a Cairns Group meeting and then for the APEC ministerial meetings in Los Cabos, Mexico, which are to take place next week. The leaders' meeting is the next weekend. So as it happens, fortuitously, all the leaders of the Asia-Pacific region will be getting together anyway in Los Cabos, Mexico, the weekend after next, and the foreign ministers and trade ministers from the region will be meeting a couple of days before that. I hope to be able to go myself, but I will have to wait and see how things unfold in Bali.Already arranged at our suggestion—before 12 October—is a meeting of the foreign ministers who will be in Los Cabos to talk about terrorism, and the Mexican Foreign Minister, who being the host is the chair of the foreign ministers meeting, has decided that there will be a dinner for all the foreign ministers at which terrorism will be discussed. Out of that will come recommendations from the foreign ministers to the leaders. As it turns out, President Megawati, President Jiang Zemin, Prime Minister Koizumi and our own Prime Minister will be there from the region for this meeting, as well as President Bush. We will keep the opposition's suggestion on notice. Let us see how that meeting goes. It may be constructive to have another leaders' meeting, perhaps of a smaller group of leaders, some time after that. I think we should keep that option open.I heard that some commentator had suggested that Australia would not be able to organise such a meeting; Australia would definitely be able to organise such a meeting. I do not think you should underestimate the degree of sympathy and support there is for Australia at this time in the region. I must admit that it has been very moving and very touching how much support there has been from my fellow foreign ministers and from heads of government in the region, as well as from traditional allies of Australia like the United States, the United Kingdom and so on. The suggestion is certainly something we need to keep on notice; I do not think the government would be wise to rule it out. It is a constructive idea, and we appreciate the opposition coming forward with such ideas.During the last two days, my own guess is that the issue of greatest immediate concern, other than the broader issue of bringing to justice those responsible for this hideous act, has been the repatriation of the remains of the victims. I think all of us can understand that the families want the remains brought back to Australia as soon as possible because, while it is a harsh term, they want to bring closure. Therefore, the sooner the remains can be brought back, the better. The macabre details here are that this was a series of most horrific explosions. Many of the 181 or 182 bodies in the morgue are burned and charred beyond recognition—if you do not mind me saying that to the House. They obviously have to be identified, and there is an international protocol for the identification of bodies that we apply here in Australia. I think the Prime Minister might have mentioned yesterday that we used this protocol for the Childers hostel fire, as we do in any circumstances like this. This protocol requires identification according to one of three methods: fingerprints, DNA testing and there is one other; it will come back to me in a second— PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—Dental.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—Yes, dental—thank you very much. I have been on a plane all night, so I am doing my best! Identification is according to those three criteria; one of those three has to be satisfied, and unfortunately that does take a bit of time. DNA testing, I am told—obviously I am no expert—is the method that would take the longest. I have also been advised, though, that in many cases fingerprint testing is likely to be sufficient. We now have Australian Federal Police and other Australian specialists dealing with this, doing a lot of the forensic work and testing. Hopefully, in assisting the Indonesians, that will speed the process up as much as possible. Once that process of testing has been completed, it will of course be technically up to the Indonesian authorities to release the remains.Because this is such a concern, when I was with President Megawati yesterday morning I drew it to her attention. I said that we were not asking for international protocols to be breached or anything like that; these issues have to be handled appropriately. To put it very crudely, imagine making a mistake with the identification of a body and bringing back the wrong body. It would be an awful and macabre situation. So it has to be done cautiously. But I said that I hoped that there could be not just full cooperation but that this matter could be moved ahead as quickly as possible. She was very responsive to that and very understanding of that.We have now put in place arrangements that will move along this process of bringing the remains back to Australia as quickly as possible. As you know, the government has employed an organisation called Kenyon, who are experts in disaster relief and particularly this sort of work. They have already moved into Bali, and all the indications I have are that they are very efficient in their work and will facilitate the return of the remains to Australia.There has been an understandable concern, much reported, about the capacity of the morgue in Bali to handle a disaster of this dimension. I was told by the director of the morgue that the morgue was built to cater for a maximum of 10 bodies at a time. Here we have a situation where they are over 180 bodies in a tropical environment. I am assured now, though, by the Federal Police that, through a combination of the capacity of the morgue, the quite effective use of ice—I apologise if this is rather crude, but this is according to the Australian Federal Police, who have had a lot of experience in these matters—and the bringing of refrigeration containers from Australia and I think some from Surabaya in Java, there is now adequate refrigeration for the remains. So, hopefully, those issues are being looked after appropriately. I must say that I am entirely understanding of the concerns and the complaints of the families in wanting to get the remains back to Australia. Gosh, I can really understand that, and we are doing everything we can to facilitate that as quickly as possible. I can understand that they do not care about Interpol protocol on body identification but, as I said earlier, making a mistake is a macabre prospect—it is definitely something to avoid. Hopefully, this problem will be resolved fairly quickly.I have said a lot about it in question time and I do not need to repeat myself greatly, but more broadly, I really have been very impressed with the response of the Indonesians to this crisis. From President Megawati down they not only were grieving for us and, of course, for their own people but have been extraordinarily cooperative. They were very welcoming of me, Senator Ellison and our delegation yesterday. Everybody we wanted to see was happy to see us and spent a lot of time with us and talked issues through to cooperate in setting up this joint investigation and intelligence team and to set up a joint police investigation as well. They really could not have been more cooperative. As I said, I have been dealing with the Indonesians as foreign minister for 6½ years. We have had some bad moments in that time and we have had some very good moments, but never has the response been as strong and constructive as I found it yesterday.Perhaps I should finish on the point of Indonesia. Others have talked about the importance of the region and this incident reinforcing that, and of course that is right. One of the things we have done since 11 September last year is talk a great deal about the dangers and importance of terrorism, including in the region. In Jogjakarta a fortnight or so ago—not much more than a week before the Bali disaster—the Indonesian foreign minister, some other foreign ministers, including the Filipino foreign minister, and I had long discussion about the whole issue of terrorism, including Jemaah Islamiah, Abu Sayyaf and other organisations operating in South-East Asia and their links to al-Qaeda. It is something that has been reinforced over and over again with the Indonesians and others over quite some period, so I am glad that more progress is gradually being made on that front. (Time expired)15:48:007979Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—As with others, I rise to speak on this matter of public importance with great sadness. In time, those responsible for the atrocity of last weekend will need to account for their actions. In time, when we become aware of the individuals or organisations responsible for this mass murder, they will need to be pursued and justice will need to be delivered. But for now, we turn our thoughts towards the families and friends of those killed or maimed last Saturday night.On behalf of the people of Swan and all Australians, I express my condolences to all those who have lost loved ones in this barbaric attack. I would also like to pass on the thanks and pride felt by all Australians to all those involved in its aftermath: to the medical staff in Bali, Darwin and around Australia, to the members of the Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade, to the members of our Federal Police and our defence forces for their exceptional work and dedication.From my home state of Western Australia, I would particularly like to acknowledge the magnificent efforts of the medical teams at the Royal Perth, Sir Charles Gairdner and Fremantle public hospitals. Medical, counselling, consular and Defence personnel both in Bali and here in Australia have operated in circumstances on an appalling scale. I know that the images we have seen on our television sets cannot even begin to capture the carnage and horror inflicted on those innocent people last weekend.This is indeed a tragedy of almost hellish proportions. It is impossible for the words we express here today—the words that have been expressed here this week—to truly capture the enormity of the carnage that occurred in Kuta last weekend. It is particularly horrific in terms of not only casualties but also the extent of the injuries inflicted on what was mainly a young crowd of people. For many Australians, this was their first visit to Bali; indeed, their first overseas trip. They left their families in Australia in high spirits, with expectations of a great adventure, of a drink or two with mates and perhaps the chance of making new friends.Many Australian families now face the heartache and anguish of not knowing the fate of their son or daughter, mother or father. This is a cruel twist to an already malicious act. We should also not forget that while the Australian toll is horrific, there are families across the globe who are also grieving for relatives, friends and mates they will never see again. Some of the wonderful people of Bali are amongst the missing, and our thoughts are with all those Balinese who have also been targeted by the murderers responsible for this evil attack.For many Australians, and particularly for Western Australians, the island of Bali is synonymous with laughter, fun and enjoying the company of your mates. These are in fact some of the defining features of the Australian character. My teenage cousin was among those enjoying the company of his footy mates last Saturday night in Kuta. He was at Paddy's Bar when the first explosion hit. Despite the chaos of the scene, he and his friends searched through the carnage for a mate they originally could not find. Fortunately, they did. Aaron was dragged from Paddy's Bar suffering serious leg, neck and stomach wounds. He is now recovering in a Perth hospital after surgery to remove the shrapnel embedded in him. Just prior to question time I heard that his prognosis for recovery is good. The bravery displayed by my cousin and his friends is just one of many stories of courage and inspiration to come out of this tragedy. Of course, they would not think of it as bravery—they were just mates looking after one another. This again is one of the strengths of this nation—we look after each other. It is a quality that I am sure will help see us through this dark time. There is no doubt that we are a nation in shock and mourning. In many ways, for many the worst may be yet to come. Given the cruel nature of this atrocity, the process of identification may take several weeks if not months. Burns victims will require months, if not years, of medical treatment and therapy. The psychological consequences for those involved in the Bali attacks and their families cannot be underestimated. These are the scars which we cannot see and may in fact prove to be the hardest to heal. This tragedy is one of the darkest episodes in Australia's history. It is certainly, as the Leader of the Opposition said, one the most tragic since the end of World War II.We must work together, however, to ensure that our sense of anger and frustration with this tragedy is not directed at others in our community but against those who orchestrated this attack. Those responsible for this outrage must pay for their crimes. Equally important, this parliament must work together to assist those so horribly affected by the attack. I applaud today's joint departure of both the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to Bali. This spirit of bipartisanship will be vital in the months ahead as we come to terms with the Bali tragedy. As a nation and as a member of the international community, we must work together to restore security to the lives of Australians and other peace-loving people. We must seek out and destroy those organisations that foster the hatred at the core of the Bali attacks. As the member for Griffith said on Tuesday:We are not Labor, we are not Liberal, we are not National, we are not Independents; we are Australians. We face here a common challenge, which we will embark upon together.Australia must take a leading role in helping to restore security in our region, and I welcome calls for some form of security alliance between the governments within the South-East Asian region.In Western Australia, if I can comment on events in my home state, the steps of the state's parliament house are fast becoming a focal point for the outpouring of grief, solidarity and outrage. Floral tributes are growing in number, from large arrangements through to simple single flowers. As one note says, `Our hearts are aching.' And indeed they are. Another wreath carries the message: `Our prayers are with you all. They will not break our spirit.' If there is a message I would like to send to the families and friends of those killed it is exactly that: our thoughts are with you; they will not break our spirit. I understand that the grounds of Government House in Perth will also be opened this Sunday to allow further tributes and for people to sign a condolence book. A minute's silence will be observed at midday. I am sure that other states and territories will have similar ceremonies and I urge people to attend those. Our hearts, as I said, are aching for the lives cut so terribly short by this tragedy—for the husbands, wives, sons, daughters, lovers, footy mates and friends who were simply enjoying themselves and the company of their friends when cowards decided to take their lives. Our hearts are aching and go out to all those affected by this tragedy. Your grief and pain is understandable, and we share it. I am sure I speak on behalf of all of us in this place when I urge anyone in need of assistance and unable to find it to contact their member of parliament's electorate office. As the representatives of the people of Australia we must commit ourselves to comfort and assist those people whose lives will never be the same again as a result of this attack. I am sure all Australians' lives will never be the same. Equally, we must commit ourselves to take the necessary action against the criminals responsible for this attack. We have a duty to the dead and to their grieving families to do no less.15:56:007980Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon in the matter of public importance debate on the Bali terrorist attacks. I place on record that the government obviously agrees with the tenor of the MPI as proposed by the opposition. That is why we signalled our support for it by all rising in our places as one when the opportunity arose in order to demonstrate our bipartisan support for the sentiments contained in this MPI. This is a very rare MPI in this House because they are usually opportunities for partisan clarion rhetoric and a calling to arms of one side against the other. This is an MPI unlike most that I have seen in the last 9½ years that I have been in this place because it is a mutual outpouring of support for the people of Australia and, most importantly, for the families of those who have been injured or who are deceased as a result of the Bali bombing. We all know the Bali bombing is a sickening, cowardly act of murderers—no more and no less. All Australians would agree with the substance of this MPI. All the speeches so far—those by the foreign minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Swan—have reflected the fact that this is a serious debate and a serious opportunity to place on record our support for the families and friends of those who have been killed or injured in the Bali bombing. The Bali bombing is a catastrophe unparalleled in Australia's peacetime history. When the final number of victims is known, it will surpass that for any other peacetime tragedy that has befallen Australians. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted before, 30 is probably the lower number that we will find at the end of this horrible affair—the number will be much higher. One would not want to speculate on the numbers, but with 119 Australians still missing there is the potential for it to be a very high number indeed.What strikes me most of all is the youthfulness of the victims. The faces looking out from the newspapers every morning are, by and large, young Australians. This is the terrible aspect of this crime. The perpetrators of it knew that when they struck at the Sari Club they would strike young people—young Australians and those of other nationalities—enjoying themselves, innocent victims of some fantasy of those who perpetrated the crime for some imagined slight against them by so-called Westerners. That is the tragic aspect of this crime: theyouthfulness of it, the wrecking and the wrenching of the innocence of Australians, the victims themselves and of our country. Australians are used to being the popular traveller. Australians find it very hard to understand that anybody would want to kill our countrymen because those of us who have travelled—and everybody in this House would have travelled at some point—are used to being popular visitors to other people's countries. Australians are welcome and respected visitors outside Australia. That is one of the most horrifying aspects of this terrible tragedy that has befallen Australians.The PM's handling of this catastrophe, from the moment that he was aware of it, has been exemplary. Today, in his trip to Bali, with an hour's notice, taking with him the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, he has demonstrated his support and his empathy for the families and friends of those who have either perished or been injured in the Bali bombing. It is the right thing to have done—to have taken the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party—to demonstrate that all of our parties are united in our condemnation of this terror and also in our want to support, in the terms of the MPI, the families and friends of the victims. The bipartisanship is expected and welcome.I also welcome the Prime Minister's act in appointing Ric Smith, as the ambassador in Jakarta, to move to Bali to coordinate the entire Australian effort. It indicates that we are going to leave no stone unturned; we are going to do everything humanly possible to achieve our priorities. Our priorities at the moment are the retrieval and repatriation of the victims, the bringing to justice and the investigation of the perpetrators of this crime, and also support for the families of the deceased and the injured.The retrieval and repatriation of the remains of the deceased is obviously one of the most distressing aspects of this entire affair. As the foreign minister pointed out, the numerous explosions that occurred left the victims in a state which makes it very hard to identify them. Indonesia is, quite properly, applying the Interpol protocol on body identification, which we would also do. The three tests for that are dental records, DNA and fingerprinting. This crime's youthful aspect means that dental records, ironically, are not very useful. Because the victims are so young, dental records yield little result in identification. It is the same with fingerprinting. So DNA testing is probably the only method that will yield the results that the families so desperately want, which is to know about those who are missing and those who are at the moment in the morgue in Bali. But DNA testing takes some time. The government are in the invidious position of feeling utter empathy with the families of the victims, yet being unable to do any more than we are doing to try and quickly identify the victims and repatriate them. The government is paying all of the costs of retrieval and repatriation of the victims. The AFP have taken charge of the Bali morgue in conjunction with the Indonesian government, so our own AFP officers are now handling the forensic aspect of this operation. The government got five refrigeration units to the Bali airport as soon as was humanly possible and there are four more on stand-by if they are needed in order to be able to maintain the bodies of the victims while the identification process goes on. The government has asked Kenyon International Emergency Services, an international firm which deals with the victims of disasters, to go to Bali. Six of their employees are there now, working with Qantas on the preparation of the return of victims. Of course, the government is assisting Qantas, in every aspect, to return the bodies.The remains of the Australian victims cannot be repatriated, even though some families would like them back in Australia, until we know who they are. That is one of the other tragic aspects of this matter. We, as well, would like them all to be back here as soon as possible, but the reality is that there is no point repatriating victims who are not Australians and who do not have families here in Australia waiting for them to return.The second of our high priorities is support for families of the deceased and the injured. All of our hearts go out to those people. The government acted immediately to use our defence forces to return the injured to Australia as quickly as possible—not just Australians but non-Australians as well. The burns units from all across Australia, including the South Australian Royal Adelaide Hospital burns unit, all converged on Darwin, which has the best hospital in Australia to handle this problem. It is the only hospital in Australia with a disaster unit, because of the potential for cyclones in Darwin. So it was the best place for them to converge.The government announced yesterday that it is paying all the air fares and accommodation of families who wish to visit those who have been injured who are in Australian hospitals. There are 101 Australian staff in Bali and Darwin to help. There is a DFAT staff counsellor and a family liaison officer and additional counsellors are arriving shortly. There are four chaplains from the ADF, and nine additional consular staff are en route to Darwin and Bali. The briefings for the families have been held on a regular basis by Ross Tysoe, the consul general in Bali, and they have included the embassy doctor, the DFAT counsellor and AFP personnel.Our third high priority is the investigation of this crime and the bringing to justice of the perpetrators. While it is entirely appropriate that we mourn the loss of these victims, one way to bring closure to this crisis will be to bring the perpetrators to justice. The families will want to know who was responsible, and someone will need to be punished. We have 66 AFP personnel working on the ground in Bali and four British forensic experts. Twenty more AFP and state and territory officers are on their way there, along with three ASIO officers and the Defence supplementation staff team of 10, which is arriving soon.In conclusion, Australia's response has been exemplary. Our condolences go to the families of those who have lost loved ones and our prayers go to those who are injured in the hope that they will all recover and be able to return to their normal lives.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills7983The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Workplace Relations Amendment (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) Bill 2002Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2002Treasury Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2002Bills7983R16347983Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that this bill be considered forthwith.Bill agreed to.7983Miss JACKIE KELLY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (4.07 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills7983R16527983Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that this bill be considered forthwith.Bill agreed to.7983Miss JACKIE KELLY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (4.08 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills7983R16477983Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that this bill be considered forthwith.Bill agreed to.7983Miss JACKIE KELLY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (4.08 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Parliamentary Zone7983798316:09:007983Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister10—On behalf of the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, I move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 14 October 2002, namely: Construction of a roof extension to the gardener's compound at Parliament House.Question agreed to.Bills7983R16457983Debate resumed.16:10:007983Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—As the House was discussing prior to the move to question time, the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002 deals with activity testing for special benefit. Special benefit is a unique benefit in the Australian social security system. As we all know, our social security system is a highly targeted one, and that targeting has been achieved by vigorous legislative regulation of the terms and conditions under which people receive assistance. Labor supports a targeted approach where benefits, through means testing, are directed to those most in need and where the eligibility criteria for benefits are publicly known and clear. In a social security system of this style, special benefit has always been a bit of an anomaly. Its historic role has been to meet the needs of those who are in the too-hard basket, for want of a better term—people who need assistance but who are not eligible for other benefits. Special benefit has performed this role since its introduction in 1944, and since that time special benefit has been relatively flexibly administered through guidelines prescribed by the secretary of the relevant government department. This bill therefore marks somewhat of a departure from the historic approach taken to special benefit, by formalising in legislation activity testing for special benefit recipients. Such activity testing has applied to date through administrative guidelines. In formalising it through legislation, the government is indicating a more rigorous and less flexible approach to such activity testing.As has been noted by other speakers and is made clear by the second reading amendment moved by the member for Lilley, the vast majority of special benefit recipients are temporary protection visa holders. I will therefore, in this speech, make some comments about the temporary protection visa itself and the conditions under which temporary protection visa holders live. Prior to doing so, I want to make two important principles clear. I support and Labor supports a targeted, clear and transparent social security system. We therefore have no opposition, as a matter of principle, to the criteria for eligibility for social security payments being formalised. In addition, I support and Labor supports what can be termed active rather than passive welfare. Our social security system should not be founded on the basis that people are simply handed enough money to live on. Governments should clearly accept the obligation to do more to give people a real hand-up through making available to them work and training opportunities as well as money to live on. In return, welfare recipients should be obliged to make the most of the opportunities provided to them.Against that background, this bill offends the principle that both the government and the welfare recipient have obligations to each other. I seek to explain that remark by firstly going to the nature of temporary protection visas. Prior to 1999, an asylum seeker who entered Australia unauthorised and who was found to be a refugee under the refugee convention was entitled to a permanent protection visa. This visa enabled that person to stay in Australia permanently, to seek citizenship, to travel to and from Australia, and, perhaps most importantly of all, to seek family reunion. In 1999, the Migration Act was changed so that such a person would only receive a temporary protection visa, a TPV as it is known in the trade. This visa only entitles the holder to stay in Australia for 30 months. At the expiration of the 30-month period, the visa holder is supposed to be reassessed to see if his or her refugee claim still remains. If the person is still assessed as a refugee then he or she will be entitled to a permanent protection visa.Holders of TPVs do not have the right to travel, to attend English classes, to undertake other studies or to access the more intensive services of the Job Network. Most importantly, a TPV holder cannot seek family reunion. In 2001, the relevant legislation was changed again so that a person who had remained in a country in which he or she could have sought protection for more than seven days while travelling to Australia—that is, they are in such a country for more than seven days—would only ever be entitled to a TPV. The first TPV would be for a 30-month period, an honorary assessment, and if the person was still assessed as a refugee, then he or she would get another TPV. It should be noted that lawfully arrived asylum seekers, whose claims are accepted, remain entitled to permanent protection visas. So the TPV regime, in both of its recent legislative formats, applies to unauthorised arrivals.The TPV was introduced to deter people from moving from countries of first asylum. People who are processed in countries of first asylum and resettled in Australia under our offshore program, receive visas which allow them to live in Australia permanently with full rights, including family reunion. The TPV was designed to send a message that, if a person moved beyond a country of first asylum and sought to enter Australia unauthorised, they would only be entitled to a much less generous visa class. The creation of the TPV was to send a signal to have people stay and seek to be processed where they were. The tightening up of the TPV regime in 2001 was designed to send a strong message that people who move through a number of transit countries without seeking their care and protection would be in the worst possible position on entering Australia. Such persons would only ever get to stay here on a temporary basis and would never be entitled to reunite with their families. Post the 2001 changes, it was envisaged that almost everyone entering Australia by boat, that is on an unauthorised basis and predominantly by boat, would only ever be able to get a TPV. In almost all cases, such persons would have spent more than seven days in countries like Malaysia or Indonesia, where they could have contacted UNHCR and sought care and protection. Seeking to discourage movement beyond countries of first asylum and through transit countries is a good policy aim—make no mistake about that. Labor believes that seeking to discourage movement beyond countries of first asylum and through transit countries is a good policy aim. To make such movements, people put themselves in the hands of people smugglers and engage in dangerous journeys. As a nation, with the tragedy of SIEVX, we know what that can mean.As noted by UNHCR, the issue of secondary movement is undermining the international protection system and needs to be addressed. However, despite the policy goal behind the adoption of TPVs, it appears that TPVs are in fact encouraging people-smuggling and unauthorised arrivals. Specifically, it appears that the families of persons who will only ever be entitled to TPVs have been using people smugglers because it is the only way in which they will ever be able to reunite with their family members in Australia. For example, it has been estimated that up to half the asylum seekers on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea and on Nauru— those caught in the so-called Pacific solution—are women and children seeking reunion with husbands in Australia on temporary protection visas.The first 30-month temporary protection visas will start to expire later this year and the claims of such asylum seekers will be reassessed. Temporary protection visa holders who applied prior to 27 September 2001 will be assessed for permanent protection visas under the 1999 legislation. Those who applied after that date will be assessed for a further TPV under the 2001 legislation. It is not clear how these reassessments will be undertaken and what the costs will be. There are also a number of legal uncertainties. Some argue that the 2001 legislation is fatally flawed and that, despite its intention, temporary protection visa holders will still be entitled to apply for permanent protection visas. Given these matters—the fact that TPVs appear to be acting as a push factor for people-smuggling; the fact that the reassessments which need to be undertaken are characterised by legal uncertainty, unknown procedures and unknowable costs; and the fact that a subclass has been created in Australia of persons who will live forever with the uncertainty of not having a permanent status, of not being entitled to family reunion rights and without access to full settlement services—Labor believes it is time for the government to look again at the area of temporary protection visas. An appropriate way to facilitate such a reassessment may be through a parliamentary inquiry that works on a bipartisan basis to ensure that, in the structuring of visa classes in the humanitarian and refugee area, Australia meets the following three goals: one, the defeat of people-smuggling; two, the taking of a compassionate approach to those who have real protection needs and who are refugees as defined by the refugee convention; and, three, the minimising of legal complexity and costs in the assessment and reassessment of protection needs.Having dealt with the status of temporary protection visas as a matter of law as the visa applies to the class of unauthorised arrivals, let me turn now to the question of the conditions under which temporary protection visa holders live. As indicated by the second reading amendment, temporary protection visa holders do not have access to full settlement services; indeed, they do not even have access to English-language tuition. They are further confined to the margins of society by their lack of access to intensive Job Network services with their entitlement being limited to the job matching service— the billboard-style service for the notification of vacancies. To understand the position that these people find themselves in requires some act of imagination—but not a huge act of imagination. Just imagine that persecution required you to flee your home. Let us be very clear about this, because there is a lot of unclear terminology used in this area of government policy. By definition, the people about whom we are talking, temporary protection visa holders, are people who have been found to have fled their home because of persecution. If they had not been able to evidence that, they would not have been granted a temporary protection visa. So there is no question of illegal entry, queue jumping or any of the other rhetoric; these are genuine refugees by any person's standard. We need to think about how we would feel if we were required to flee our home because of persecution, if we were genuine refugees and ended up in a country where we did not speak the language and then were told that the very money on which we rely for our basic survival—that is, the money required to put food on our tables and in our mouths—would be taken away from us unless we met some tests that we would be unlikely to understand or fulfil. The task being set for these people is the equivalent of asking us to find a way—without assistance and without speaking the language—to find work and to fend for ourselves in Ulaanbaatar. If people do not know where that is, that might assist them to imagine how difficult it would be to turn up there and fend for themselves in terms of work and training opportunities when no-one is assisting you to speak the language.We already know that many of these people do not cope and that either they become completely marginalised and despondent or they seek assistance from state governments or voluntary welfare agencies. At this point, I will echo the words of the member for Reid. In my capacity as shadow minister for population and immigration for the Labor Party, I travel extensively and meet with service providers to our ethnic communities, and there are no issues raised with me more frequently than the humanitarian needs and circumstances of temporary protection visa holders. Whilst the pages of, particularly, the broadsheet media in this country would lead you to believe that the biggest issue in the refugee and asylum seeker area is detention policy, let me tell you that, from the issues that are raised with me, the humanitarian needs and circumstances of temporary protection visa holders are bigger issues.These people present for assistance. They do not have a formalised right to assistance, so they end up throwing themselves on the mercy of state governments—some of which do provide assistance to temporary protection visa holders—and, much more so, presenting themselves to voluntary agencies. From our dialogue with voluntary agencies, we know that many of these agencies, particularly those in the bigger cities of Australia—Sydney and Melbourne—are cracking under the strain because the settlement patterns of temporary protection visa holders tend to mean that they settle in relatively geographically confined areas. So all of them are presenting to the same voluntary services for assistance.This matter has been studied by a number of reports, but I will briefly take the parliament to one. The Queensland government issued a research paper entitled Temporary protection visa holders in Queensland. I would like people to note that this research paper dates from February 2001—that is, before the time that we created a subclass of temporary protection visa holder who would never be entitled to permanent settlement. So the actual visa classes and the problems have worsened since this report was issued. The key findings of this research are: ... the detention experience for most TPV entrants has left them feeling exposed, vulnerable and disillusioned;the physical health of TPV entrants has been undermined by detention experiences, post traumatic stress disorder symptoms and bureaucratic problems;TPV entrants are experiencing significant mental health difficulties;the denial of services to TPV entrants has led to social isolation;the denial of English language tuition by the Commonwealth is a major barrier to TPV entrants' participation in society;the capacity of TPV entrants to obtain employment is severely affected by their lack of English language skills and the Commonwealth's denial of employment assistance; andunattached minors experience unique psychosocial issues ...I do not think any of that would surprise the House, but it is important to put that before the House as a research finding in relation to temporary protection visa holders and their status and humanitarian needs. The research goes on to point the way forward and says that we need to explore a capacity building approach to service delivery to ensure the material welfare of TPV entrants and that we need to look at the provision of English, education and skills and the implications of social exclusion of TPV entrants.Having taken the House to that report, I would now like to come back to the bill before us. In my view, the flaw in this bill— and it is the flaw pointed to by the second reading amendment—is that you can have it one of two ways but you cannot have it both ways. The government is trying to have it both ways. If it wants to provide temporary protection visa holders with settlement services—most particularly with access to English-language tuition and full access to Job Network—then it would be more than reasonable to require activity testing for continued access to special benefit. I would have no objection to that. If you want, as this government does, to continue to deny temporary protection visa holders access to English-language classes and access to the full services of Job Network—that is, that you seek to deny them the very tools that would enable them to realistically undertake training or get work—it is unfair and inhumane to activity test them. So there are two clear paths here: you give them something and you expect something in return; or you continue to give them nothing, in which case you should expect nothing in return. The government is trying to put those two things together and give them nothing and expect something in return. In my view, that is a flawed path and not one that the government should go down.As I conclude, let me make it very clear that Labor's preference in this area is that temporary protection visa holders get access to settlement services, most particularly English-language services and access to Job Network. In those circumstances, we would support there being activity testing for their continued access to special benefit. That would be fair. That would be part of the mutual obligation system of arrangements that we apply more broadly to the social security system. But what is being envisaged here is not fair—give them nothing and expect something in return. That is the flaw in this legislation. In summary, the messages coming out from the bill today are twofold: that the government needs to review what it is doing with this bill, so that we go down the track of providing settlement services, particularly English-language services and access to the Job Network, before activity testing; and that—on a more broadly based view—it is time for the government and the opposition in a bipartisan way, through the officers of a relevant parliamentary committee, to look again at the whole status of temporary protection visas.16:30:007987Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I would like to thank all members of the House for their contributions and, indeed, the previous speaker, the member for Lalor, for her contribution. The Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002 gives legislative effect to one of the measures announced as part of the 2000-01 budget in order to address the issue of unauthorised arrivals in Australia. The bill introduces an activity test regime for certain special beneficiaries similar to the one that applies to Newstart allowance recipients. The new activity test and other conditions will apply only to nominated visa holders who, on 1 January 2003, apply for special benefit and are of work force age or reach work force age after that date. Those who are of work force age, are currently in Australia and are in receipt of special benefits will not be affected by the measures contained in this bill. This means that the 4,261 TPV holders of work force age who continue to receive special benefit after 1 January 2003 will not be affected by these measures. These measures aim to encourage social and economic participation by visa holders who hold a visa of a type that has been issued for temporary protection, humanitarian or safe haven purposes. In particular, these measures will result in access to programs that will assist and encourage them in gaining employment and relevant skills. Under the new special benefit activity test, nominated visa holders will be required to search for work, to participate in vocational training—the Work for the Dole program—and to enter into special benefit activity agreements. It will enable them to undertake a range of activities, which will include access to language, literacy and numeracy programs where improvement of the English-language skill is required. They will also be subject to compliance testing, including fortnightly reporting requirements, and to penalties for noncompliance with the activity test or with the terms of their special benefit activity agreement. The new activity test will not apply to a nominated visa holder who is permanently incapacitated for work. The bill also makes provisions for exemptions from the activity test for people in a range of circumstances, including where people have a caring responsibility or are temporarily incapacitated from work.Centrelink provides a comprehensive multicultural service that includes a transition and interpreter service to assist people at interviews and with undertaking tasks such as completing forms. These services are placed in the Centrelink network to match the needs of people in local communities. Centrelink is also able to take account of a customer's English-language skills in negotiating an activity agreement so that flexible and appropriate arrangements can be put in place for individual customers. The bill provides that, in future, unauthorised arrivals who benefit from the goodwill of the Australian community will be required to fulfil a mutual obligation. The bill also creates consistency with the provisions of the social security law that apply to Australian nationals in receipt of income support.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Swan's amendment) stand part of the question.16:38:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins) 70Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.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.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.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.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.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.56Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.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.Hatton, M.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Livermore K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.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.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.Original question agreed to.Bill read a second time.7989Mr ANTHONY (Richmond—Minister for Children and Youth Affairs) (4.45 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills7989R16367989Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Abbott:That this bill be now read a second time.16:45:007989McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—This is the second time the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 [No. 2] has come before the House and I think about the seventh time similar provisions have been brought into the House. The bill deals with the issue of unfair dismissal. Paradoxically, the bill itself is titled the fair dismissal bill. In setting the background to the debate, let me state and state firmly that the Australian Labor Party recognise the critical importance of small business to our economy. In total, 3.1 million people work in small business as either proprietors or employees. It is the major driver of jobs growth in the economy. We recognise that and, for that reason, we have said on a number of occasions that it is imperative that the burdens of unnecessary paperwork, complexity, legal form and procedure be removed from small business so they can get on with the job of creating successful businesses and employing people. In that context, we refer to removing the burden of GST red tape, we refer to equipping them to compete against predatory practices by some unscrupulous corporations and, indeed, we refer, more recently, to what we would otherwise see as very complex superannuation obligations being imposed on them.Insofar as this bill proposes to exempt employees from federal unfair dismissal laws, when you analyse it you find it is not the answer. The reason I say that is that to be covered by federal unfair dismissal laws a small business must be both a corporation and covered by a federal industrial award. On the basis of research I have seen, it is estimated that around 27 per cent of small businesses are in that category. The majority of small businesses are not affected by this legislation because they are not in the category of small businesses covered by federal awards. The great majority would be sole traders, partnerships, noncorporate bodies or simply corporate bodies covered by state awards.We recognise, and the Prime Minister has openly stated, that we should get ready for this bill to be a double dissolution trigger. I think in coming back into the House a second time this bill could be the first that could be included as a double dissolution trigger. That is something that people should have regard to in analysing the government's approach to this legislation. It is all about the politics of creating a double dissolution trigger rather than getting sensible outcomes that would genuinely reform this area in a meaningful way for small business.The Australian Labor Party recognise that there is a need for simplification of the procedure and a reduction in costs in the area of unfair dismissal. We do recognise that, if small business proprietors are served with spurious claims and are forced to defend those claims, they may, under present circumstances, feel compelled to retain legal advice and end up with a bill for several thousands of dollars to defend the action. Even if they are successful, that expense is still incurred. We say that things need to be done to simplify the procedure, remove lawyers and paid agents from the conciliation phase so that cost burden does not become a necessary outcome of being served with an application. Towards the conclusion of my speech I will go through in some greater detail the amendments that we are proposing.We recognise and the business community generally recognises, not simply the small business community, that there really is a need for uniformity in this area. While yes, as a result of ideological differences, we do recognise it is probably difficult to get uniformity in respect of all issues in the industrial relations area, but when it comes to issues affecting individual rights, as this unfair dismissal legislation does, we do not believe that, with a bit of goodwill from those involved, it would be difficult to achieve uniformity.The imperative of achieving uniform standards around Australia is demonstrated by these figures. For the financial year ending 2001—and leaving aside the state of Victoria because they only have the federal provisions applying there—there were 2,534 claims filed under the federal legislation that this bill is proposing to amend, but there were 8,485 filed under the state systems in the rest of Australia. So that again comes back to my initial point: this bill is essentially a nonremedy for the majority of small business proprietors and underlines the need for uniformity of procedures, simplification and reduction in costs across the whole spectrum of federal and state application of these laws. I ask rhetorically: are you more likely to achieve such uniform standards if they are based on the concept of a fair go all round as opposed to a partial carve out, as this bill proposes? I think to ask that question, quite frankly, answers that question.Another point I have mentioned—and other speakers and academic commentators have mentioned this—is that this is very much a case of not wishing for something too much because you might get it. If the small business community were confronted with the outcome of this legislation, they would receive exposure to far more expensive and complex remedies. For instance, if you examine the bill, you will see that it has a very limited operation. Section 170CE(5C) restricts the remedy available against small business proprietors, defined as those that employ 20 or fewer employees, to unfair dismissal only. It does not restrict the remedy to unlawful dismissal that otherwise exists under the act, nor does it restrict other remedies that may be available in the state sphere or, indeed, under common law or other remedies that exist in the federal sphere.Just dealing with those remedies that otherwise exist in the federal sphere, we have the High Court of Australia confirming that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has an extensive arbitral power when exercising that power pursuant to a disputes clause under a certified agreement. In terms of resolving a dispute, the High Court, as interpreted by various commentators, says that effectively the power is a power at large to arbitrate to resolve the particular dispute, if the dispute clause is framed so as to pick up issues of unfair dismissal. That clearly is a very broad jurisdiction.If those in the business community take their minds back before 1993 as to how these matters were progressed, they will see that they were progressed by logs of claim being served throughout Australia on various businesses in the particular industry concerned to create a demand for an unfair dismissal remedy and then for that remedy to be tailored in respect of the particular employee or employees concerned. Just looking at some of the cases where those involved in industrial relations practice would readily recall the complexities of the litigation through various appeal stages—through the commission and the Federal Court, up into the High Court— we see the names of Ranger uranium, the Boyne Smelters case, the Wool Dumpers case and, quite an infamous case, the Vista Paper Products dispute case. The Vista Paper Products case went on a series of what the chief justice of the industrial court said eventually was an orgy of litigation. Substantially involved in this issue was the power of creating a sufficiently framed or accurately framed industrial dispute such that it empowered the commission to order reinstatement, and such orders were in fact made in the Vista Products case. But the fact of the matter—and this is a good example—is that the expense of the litigation and associated procedures killed Vista Paper Products. Quite frankly, if small business proprietors think that is a good thing, it would astound me. But these are the things that have to be considered.Arguably, it would also expose small business proprietors to state remedies, as I have mentioned. For instance, with the remedy of unfair contract in the state of New South Wales, there is currently a case on appeal that may well resolve that the remedy exists even in respect of circumstances where employment may otherwise be regulated by federal provisions. Also, there is an emerging area of the common law duty of mutual trust and confidence that exists in respect of contractual law generally but more specifically—as you would imagine and appreciate and, if you think about it, probably welcome—in respect of contracts involving the provision of personal services. Certainly it is quite a sophisticated jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, but increasingly it is a principle being applied by Australian courts. Indeed, as these things tend to follow debate, it is something that is the subject of current debate in various legal and industrial law conferences.Inevitably, if these relatively straightforward remedy procedures—albeit they can be improved—under the federal unfair dismissal laws were removed, this whole gamut of complex and expensive litigation would confront small businesses as a reality. You might say, `Look, why aren't these being pursued now?' The fact is that they are not being pursued because there is a relatively straightforward procedure. Quite frankly, if you were advising someone to pursue a remedy for unfair dismissal, you would be mad to advise them to take these complicated procedures when there is such a relatively straightforward mechanism available in the federal legislation.It is also vitally important to point out to small businesses—bearing in mind that again we are talking about only 27 per cent of small businesses being covered by this federal legislation—that nothing exists in this legislation to prevent them from being exposed to an action for unlawful dismissal. This is a dismissal involving an allegation of discrimination or a breach otherwise of the act or the family provisions in the act. It is not difficult to imagine that a number of claims that could be framed as unfair dismissal claims could simply be reframed as unlawful dismissal claims. Indeed, quite often these applications are made in what might be called double-bunger form: both unfair and unlawful. What would happen is that applications would still be made, but I suppose the first bunger would be extinguished by this legislation.To suggest that this exemption is an answer to the legitimate concerns that we have recognised the small business community have in respect of the operation of these laws is pretty ordinary. It is not the answer. More likely than not, in my submission, it would create a nightmare of complexity and cost for them. The other point I want to make is that, if you are going to take away this concept of a remedy for unfair dismissal, you have to ask yourself what you are taking away. If you look at the early provisions of this schedule of the act, what you are taking away is the right to a fair go. The legislation specifically refers to these remedies giving employees the right to a fair go. In the case of Loty and Holloway, the reference was `a fair go all round'. The court said that you have to look at these things in a practical way. You have to look at what gives both parties—the employee, or the worker, and the employer—a fair go all round. This educative effect has really developed over the last two decades, essentially since 1983. The termination change and redundancy cases in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission saw many federal awards adopting similar award provisions, giving employees remedies for unfair dismissal. That has had as much an educative effect as a regulatory effect, and has created a culture where, before someone is given the sack, they are at least afforded basic procedural fairness, advised of the allegations against them and given the opportunity to respond to those. Given the dramatic consequences—for them and for their family—of losing their job, we would submit that that is an entirely reasonable proposition.The laws have also had a part, as some commentators have suggested, in businesses looking at more carefully defining for people the obligations or the tasks expected of them, procedures for review, feedback and then guidance, if necessary, followed by disciplinary proceedings. It is terribly important to the proper functioning and efficiency of a business that employees know what is expected of them, have standards against which they are judged and have interaction on whether or not they are achieving those. A very useful report issued in 1995 called the Karpin report said that more work can be done in terms of improving the management skills of small business. Rather than saying, `Don't look at these issues; you don't have to, because we are giving a carve-out,' which is again only a partial carve-out, Dr Rowena Barrett from Monash University has said, `These are the other issues which businesses should be looking at in terms of improving management styles.'The other thing I want to point out is that these unfair dismissal law exemptions are not desired by the totality of small business proprietors by any means. Indeed, a survey that the opposition has referred to in several press releases referred to concerns that it may result in small business being regarded as the poor relation in terms of the business community as a whole. That is important in terms of the small business sector attracting talent. If they really are to match the rest of the world in being innovators—as the best of small business can be—that is a vitally important thing. I note that the Governor of the Reserve Bank recently made a speech on his concerns about a potential skills shortage in Australia. How much worse will that be for small business if employees think their livelihoods are exposed to arbitrary acts by the employer—they could simply sack them without any reason or any access to procedural fairness?The other point that I wish to make is that the policy itself, in terms of the calculation of 20 employees or fewer, is basically illogical and poor policy. Marilyn Pittard, again from Monash University and a consultant to Clayton Utz lawyers, has referred to the ease with which businesses could restructure themselves to avoid this legislation. She notes that insofar as the legislation will apply to future employees it is a relatively easy thing for the Year 2002 company, for instance, to create the Year 2002A company, which would get 19 employees, and then create the Year 2003 company for further employees and so forth, thus avoiding the legislation. No-one would sensibly say that that is a good thing.While small business proprietors are employers, more often than not they are also parents and grandparents. They do not want their children or their grandchildren to be forced to work in an environment where they can be exposed to arbitrary or capricious action by an unfair employer. The minister has said on a number of occasions—and I, with respect, agree with him—that the vast majority of small business proprietors are decent people and realise the value they have in their employees. But that is by no means universal. Without these provisions, quite often the most marginalised and vulnerable individuals—young employees without great skills—would be exposed to that arbitrary and capricious action by employers. Having said that, you can appreciate just how vitally important these unfair dismissal laws are as a safety net. They are probably a prime safety net, if you view them in that context, because they represent the right to hang onto your job—unless there are valid reasons for your termination. As I have indicated, the consequences for individuals and families can be devastating. As a matter of sound administration and morality, you would ask: `Should the government be removing such a crucial safety net provision?' You would only contemplate doing that if you had sound reasons to do so. Quite frankly, the government has not made its case. I do not say that in the political context; I say that quite literally: it has not made its case.When the case was tested in the Federal Court of Australia, in the Hamzy case, it was found wanting. The government appeared with senior counsel and called Professor Mark Wooden to give evidence on the impact of the unfair dismissal laws that the government alleged to be job killers. The Federal Court, after considering the cross-examination of Dr Wooden and the general submissions of the Commonwealth, unanimously concluded:It seems unfortunate that nobody has investigated whether there is any relationship between unfair dismissal legislation and employment growth. There has been much assertion on this topic during recent years, but apparently no effort to ascertain the factual situation.Later the court said:... it seems to us the suggestion of a relationship between unfair dismissal laws and employment inhibition is unproven.Those are comments by the Federal Court of Australia. I do not believe the government has conducted any valid research that could withstand analysis to justify its assertion that the removal of these laws—for only 27 per cent of small businesses, in any event—would create jobs.Having made all these points, it is imperative that the government and indeed the parliament look at the whole range of matters that affect small businesses and their ability to operate efficiently. The removal of the burden of red tape and expense is obviously something that we must all responsibly examine. It is in that context that the opposition will be sincerely proposing and moving a series of amendments to the Workplace Relations Act to improve the system so that it operates more efficiently and cheaply.Before I briefly outline those amendments, I want to summarise how the current situation operates. Currently—indeed, as a result of amendments by the government, I will acknowledge—there is a conciliation phase in unfair dismissal claims. After that conciliation phase, the industrial commission grants a certificate regarding the merits of the case before them in which they will say whether it is a viable case or a frivolous case. If a case continues beyond the granting of that certificate when the commissioner has said that it is frivolous or without merit, there is every likelihood under the legislation that not only the applicant but also the advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant will face an order for costs. Quite frankly, you would be mad to take a case beyond that conciliation phase if you received an adverse certificate.Our emphasis in the amendments we are proposing is on removing the issue of costs from that conciliation phase. We are proposing that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, lawyers or agents appearing for fee or reward be removed from that concilation phase. That is to avoid a situation where a small business proprietor who is served with an application thinks that they have to automatically run off to see a lawyer, thus incurring expenses and so forth. In other words, it would get the employer and the individual concerned to sit down before the conciliator and try to resolve the matter at that point. That is the main thrust of the opposition's amendments, but we also think other improvements can be made.We are proposing a gateway hurdle whereby, unless exceptional circumstances existed, the industrial commission would reject an application from someone who sought only financial compensation, as opposed to someone who genuinely wanted their job back. We have proposed, as I have mentioned, the restriction—unless there are exceptional circumstances—of paid representation at that conciliation phase. We are proposing the registration of paid agents so that they abide by an appropriate code of conduct. We are proposing the development of an information package so that people can find out that these principles are not too hard to abide by. For example, if you are going to sack someone for misconduct, you put to them the allegations against them; if you are going to sack them because of poor performance, you give them the opportunity to improve their performance; if you have to sack them because of operational requirements, you sit down and discuss the situation with them before the final decision is made. These are basic principles that could easily be discussed. We are proposing an indicative time frame for these matters to be resolved so that it is not hanging over the head of either the applicant or the small business proprietor. We are proposing provisions to encourage the greater use of electronic communications, particularly to relieve small business proprietors who live away from the main centres of the burden of leaving their businesses and incurring expenses in travelling to cities. We are also proposing, in order to simplify the procedure when there are a number of dismissals for the same or similar reasons, the ability for representative actions to be brought.I will be discussing those amendments in greater detail in the consideration in detail stage of this debate, but at this stage, I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:(1) confirms that the protection from being unfairly dismissed is a fundamental safety net issue for Australian workers and their families irrespective of the size of the business in which they are employed;(2) notes that the Australian Labor Party, in Opposition and as a future Government, is committed to working with small business, employees and peak bodies to make unfair dismissal laws more effective by addressing procedural complexities and costs; and(3) condemns the government for:(a) promoting socially divisive policies for its political purposes;(b) using the issue of unfair dismissal to deflect criticism of the fact that its taxation policies have tied up small business in an unprecedented level of complexity and red tape;(c) proposing legislation that would actually expose small business to other areas of more complex and costly litigation;(d) undermining the security that unfair dismissal laws have given Australian workers and their families;(e) failing to assist small business to develop effective human resource strategies in terms of the selection, ongoing training, supervision and management of employees; and(f) failing to heed calls from the small business community for a more constructive approach to the issue of unfair dismissal that is likely to result in uniform national standards underpinned by the concept of a “fair go all round”.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Is the amendment seconded?83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.17:15:007994Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—It is good to hear the member for Barton acknowledge that unfair dismissals are a major problem for small business enterprises. I have been exposed to many small businesses, and it is interesting to see how these things often arise. Most employers in this country are of good calibre and, if they have an unsatisfactory employee, it is often a problem between employees rather than the employer-employee relationship. Anecdotally, it is often other employees in the workplace demanding dismissal of a person who is a repetitive offender, obnoxious, unsafe or unsuited to that workplace.The biggest problem is the courts. They were mentioned by the member for Barton as being judges of the viability of what this means. I would say that they would be the worst judges of all. Let me assure you that, if you ring up any big legal firm and say, `I've got an unfair dismissal charge,' the bulk of lawyers, including the firm mentioned, will tell you: `Pay your $3,000 to $4,000. Don't worry about it. Don't take it to court. Even if you win, you're going to lose so much money that it won't be worth your while.' It is just a horrific cost, it is intimidating for small business and it is not always being generated from the employee-employer relationship. As was mentioned by the member for Barton, only 27 per cent of people are covered under the federal jurisdiction. Certainly, we have got to set the leadership in this and show the states what needs to be done. The barriers for people to join the federal system are not impossible. The former French President Charles de Gaulle once said, `Success contains within it the germs of failure—and the reverse is also true.' In other words, failure also contains within it the germs of success. I certainly hope that this is the case with the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 [No. 2], which aims to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Having failed in its passage through the Senate recently, I hope the germs of success have been sown for its acceptance this time. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill [No. 2] will exempt small businesses from unfair dismissal claims. It will prevent new small business employees, except apprentices and trainees, from applying for remedy for unfair dismissal and require the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to reject unfair dismissal applications made against small businesses and dismiss such claims without holding a hearing. A small business is defined as one employing fewer than 20 employees.The content and intent of this bill will be very familiar to everyone in this place. It is identical to the bill that was laid aside on 28 June 2002 after members of this House rejected Senate amendments that would have diluted the effectiveness of the bill by destroying its employment-creating potential. This government has gone to the country on three separate occasions on a platform of workplace reform and three times the electorates have endorsed it. I spoke on a previous version of this measure in the House early in 2001, before the coalition was elected for the third time. On that occasion, it was the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2], but the intent was the same. The title of this bill, which will amend the former Labor government's 1996 unfair dismissal laws, does not contain the word `unfair', because it is not about unfairness; it is about fairness. It is about encouraging small businesses to employ more people without fear of costly and time-consuming legal battles if the relationship does not work out—and, as I say, most of these never go to court, because you cannot afford it.The Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill [No. 2] is about fairness for employers and employees alike. It is essential that we change the unfair dismissal laws to restore the balance between protecting workers' rights and encouraging small business to take on more staff. How fair is it for the youngsters leaving schools and TAFEs to find that they cannot get work—that the local car repair yard, the printing company or the avocado farm is not taking on new staff for fear of the backlash if it does not work out?Since 1996, federal unfair dismissal laws have created a serious obstacle to employment growth in Australia. A report by the Centre for Independent Studies indicated that, if only five per cent of small businesses employed just one extra person, 50,000 jobs would be created. The report concluded that employment in small business would rise significantly in the absence of the unfair dismissal laws.Since this government came to power in March 1996, more than one million jobs have been created. The government's economic policies, sound fiscal management and workplace relations reforms have all helped produce this result. But we must take it further. We must give small businesses the confidence to hire staff without fear of being saddled with unsuitable or incompetent workers, or being hit with costly unfair dismissal claims. The small business sector is a significant contributor to the Australian economy and employs well over three million people. If the stats suggest that 50,000 jobs would be created if five per cent of small businesses employed one extra person, it is not hard to calculate the effect on the employment figures if 10 or 20 per cent of small businesses were able to do so. The Keating government's unfair dismissal laws have put a ball and chain around the ankles of small business operators in Australia. They have no place in a thriving economy in the 21st century; they belong in the dim and distant past. We must look to the future and redress the balance. We must support the small business sector that supports so many hardworking Australians.I want to emphasise again that a small business works on its pedigree and it has to keep its employees content. If there is unhappiness in its work force, it loses its productivity, so it is in the employer's interest to maintain contented and happy employees. Again, I re-emphasise, the majority of these cases arise because of problems between employees—employee-employee problems.There have been concerns that small business operators will behave unscrupulously and that employees' rights will be compromised. This is not so. Employees will continue to be protected against dismissal on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, disability or marital status. The exemption of small businesses from the unfair dismissal laws simply ensures that, if an employee is unsuited to the work required—if he or she is a square peg in a round hole—the employer can dismiss that person and take on someone more suited for the work. This will include the appropriate things that the member for Barton said should take place before a dismissal happens. There is nothing unfair about that. No employer can say with certainty that the person he or she selects at an interview will fit in as expected. For that matter, no employee can be sure either. Quite often things do not work out the way either party envisaged. Clearly it is in everybody's best interest to keep continuity in a business. There is no mileage for the employer in sacking people without good cause. Hiring and firing is a costly, time-consuming exercise—particularly in small operations—and the effects are felt in great magnitude by management and staff, as well as the productivity of the business.In most cases if you look behind a successful business you will see staff that have been there for the long haul. Having employees that you can trust and rely on is one of the greatest assets an employer could ever wish for. With the current unfair dismissal laws, small businesses are often extremely wary of taking on new staff. This has had a detrimental effect on job growth. Often the issue of taking on additional staff is seen as a gamble which could have costly side effects if it does not pay off, leaving some small business operators preferring not to take that gamble. A small business owner, without the benefit of a human resources manager that larger companies have access to, has a real fear of making a mistake when taking somebody on. Some potential employees can look fantastic on paper. In recent years there has been a proliferation of companies and agencies offering to draw up professional resumes. You can no longer rely on the handwritten application to give you some insight into the person's presentation and degree of literacy and comprehension. Some employees can also perform expertly in a job interview but it is often difficult to determine whether that person would work well within a small team environment.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—You get three months probation already.84FWasher, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER—That is true, they have three months probation, but sometimes even then you get employer-employee relationship breakdowns. Sometimes, a person is just not right for the job. Under the present system, many small business operators would rather struggle through increasing workloads, for themselves and their existing staff, than to take the risk of employing someone new. We cannot afford to have small businesses thinking this way.The compelling reasons behind this measure have been championed many times in this House, in the Senate, in the media, by small business organisations and by a majority report of a Senate committee. We must not give up on the small business sector that employs more than three million Australians, with the potential to employ many, many more. We owe it to them—the young people entering the work force and those who have not yet been successful in securing employment—to pass this bill. I commend this bill to the House. 17:25:007997Grierson, Sharon, MPMs GRIERSON00AMPNewcastleALP00—I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 [No. 2]. This legislation represents the seventh attempt by the government to introduce provisions purporting to exempt small business from unfair dismissal laws. I wish there had been a similar number of attempts to introduce legislation enacting employment creation programs. Today's fair dismissal bill exempts those small businesses with fewer than 20 employees which are bound by federal awards and which are constitutional corporations from the dismissal laws of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.Exactly how many is that? Only 20 per cent of small businesses are actually covered by the federal award and there are some 1,750,000 small businesses in Australia. So it looks as though this legislation will affect approximately 215,000 small businesses. But this legislation is not based on actual data. What does that data mean in my electorate of Newcastle? I cannot really tell you that because the data for regions is very hard to find. It is difficult to quantify the number of small businesses in my electorate and virtually impossible to analyse them by employee size or by the nature of their business, let alone know what award they are covered by. But again, this legislation is not based on accurate data. Reduced funding to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and a policy emphasis on capital city data means regions are generally overlooked. What a pity when a basic principle of strategic management is to base decisions on actual data. The most recent comprehensive statistics we have on small business are dated 1998. That is clearly not good enough. As I have done several times in this House, I urge the government to expand the function of the ABS so that regional data is more available.Why does the government put this legislation forward? According to the minister, the main justification for fair or unfair dismissal legislation for small business is that it will create jobs—no less than 55,000, he suggests at times. We in Newcastle wish that were true, but to be fair the arguments put forward to test that justification should be examined in this House. The idea of a small business exemption being justified by consequent jobs creation potential has also been put forward by others advising the government. The Centre for Independent Studies, in a paper entitled `Poor laws (1): the unfair dismissal laws and long-term unemployment', argue:The Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 ... is intended to exclude small businesses from the unfair dismissal laws and thereby to encourage job creation. Such an exemption is sensible because the unfair dismissal laws have a particularly adverse effect on small businesses without enough resources to cope with unfair dismissal allegations.They claim:Survey results indicate that small business employment would have been higher had it not been for the unfair dismissal laws.That sounds plausible; however, this paper has been discredited, particularly in the Federal Court's decision referred to by the previous speakers. In Hamzy v. Tricon International Restaurants, the Commonwealth relied on Professor Mark Wooden as a labour market expert, who gave evidence to the effect that the removal of the exemption for casual employment from the unfair dismissal provisions would have an adverse effect on job creation in Australia. But the full court rejects that argument, noting that there had not been any direct research on the effects of introducing unfair dismissal laws on job creation. As I have said, this legislation does not depend on accurate data.Debate interrupted.Adjournment799710000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.799717:30:007997Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise this evening to bring the attention of the House to a number of things, and a couple of them are personal. Last evening, I was fortunate enough to be invited to attend the inaugural dinner of the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group. One may ask: why is Haase a member of this group? It was due primarily to the fact that Mr Ernie Bridge, a member of Unity of the First People of Australia, had introduced to me some time ago a diabetes management and care program that he introduced to the Noonkanbah community in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. The basis of this diabetes management and care program relies on volunteers, and Mr Bridge had gained the interest of a number of reputable people from Western Australia who had time on their hands and the ability to give a message and tell people of some of the pitfalls of lifestyle and dietary habits and how they might result in an individual falling victim to especially diabetes type 2. At the dinner I attended last evening, one of the guest speakers was Professor Paul Zimmet. Professor Zimmet has had a long association with diabetes and the study thereof and brought to us a number of facts in relation to diabetes, especially diabetes type 2, in Australia and across the world. It is certainly looming as a disease—a condition—of almost epidemic proportions across the world. The major question is: why? The jury is still out with regard specifics, but at this stage it looks as though it is a condition brought on by our lack of exercise as a race and our consumption of foods with a very high sugar content.It is therefore appropriate that I give due credit to the work of Mr Ernie Bridge in Noonkanbah. Due to the good results that he has had there in changing lifestyle and eating habits, the program has been further introduced by him in the Jigalong community in the Pilbara of Western Australia, working once again with volunteers who come to the community, live in the community and talk to the population about what they might do on a personal and daily basis to lessen the risk of them falling victim to diabetes type 2.One of the major problems with community populations, because many of them are extremely remote, is the absence of a large range of fresh fruit and vegetables. So the first step that has been encouraged in these communities is to reduce the amount of tinned and frozen food and to encourage the inclusion of fresh vegetables on the supermarket shelves. Having done that, one has to encourage the community to purchase, prepare and consume these vegetables, and that is no small task. But with a dedicated group giving up their time and pointing out the pitfalls and pointing out the manner in which these vegetables can be prepared et cetera, some inroads are being made.Exercise groups are being put together in communities and in some for the first time senior people are involving themselves in regular exercise. I have a large collection of correspondence from people who have been through the community noticing the difference and talking about the reduction in the number of full sugar soft drinks on the shelves of the community stores and their replacement with diet products. I think that is such an important move in the right direction. It was not unusual to have seen in the past in these communities somebody with a two-litre bottle of full sugar soft drink, and they may have consumed two of those in a day on a regular basis. Just turning around that consumption habit is such a great achievement, and all credit must go to Ernie Bridge and his team from Unity of the First People of Australia diabetes management program. (Time expired)799817:35:007998George, Jennie, MPMs GEORGEJH5ThrosbyALP00—I rise to say a few words at the end of what has been a very sad and tragic week for all members of parliament, a week in which our nation has expressed its collective grief against the barbarism perpetrated against innocent victims, both Australian and other tourists to Bali and the local Balinese community.I think coping with death is a very individual and personal situation. It has touched me personally in my life, and I know what the families and friends of the loved ones are experiencing. I hope that they genuinely understand the expressions of condolences and grief that have been so very evident in the many words that have been expressed already in this parliament. I think at best all we can do is reach out, but nothing relieves the personal pain and suffering that people who have lost their loved ones are now experiencing. October 12 was a black day for our nation. I think it will be one of those days that remain indelibly imprinted on the minds of all our people. But it is also a black day for humanity as well. I think it will be long remembered in our nation's history as one of those days when the dark side of people was so evident—the dark side of the brutal terrorism that was inflicted on innocent people. But in this terrible tragedy for our nation and in the awfully adverse circumstances that have confronted us, I think there have been many examples of heroism and generosity displayed by hundreds of people who will probably remain the unsung heroes of a very tragic set of circumstances. I know that we have all looked at the individual stories in the newspapers. I reflected on a group of young boys from Garie Beach, not far from my electorate, who formed a human chain to help people escape over the rooftops from the blazing inferno. We have read the stories of injured people giving up their seats on the first plane out to others who were more seriously affected. We have learnt of stories of mateship, of the voluntary efforts that have been made, of the sadness of people who have been left orphaned and of the magnificent response of medical services—our doctors and nurses, the emergency agencies and Defence personnel.On Sunday, when the whole nation grieves and reflects on this tragic set of circumstances, I hope we will also reflect on the wonderful examples of mateship that are so common in the Australian spirit and that shone through in the darkest hours of this great tragedy. Like all politicians, this week I have tried to find some small examples that restore your faith in humanity and in the essential goodness of people. The dark side of humanity should not be allowed to remain the only impression imprinted on our minds. It is in that light that I want to spend a moment acknowledging a local event that I was involved in that was organised by the Wollongong City Council during Refugee Week.It is the case, unfortunately, that in an increasingly globalised world global terrorism knows no boundaries. As well, this globalised world does not show enough compassion, in my judgment, to many millions of people who are displaced and who find themselves in the position of being refugees. Our region receives about 55 refugee families each year. Wollongong is a city of great multicultural diversity, and we are just about to receive our first Ethiopian and Iraqi families. I am pleased that the Wollongong City Council is the first in New South Wales to commit itself to declaring the City of Wollongong as a refugee welcome zone. The statement that was adopted by the Wollongong City Council stated, in part:Wollongong City Council is determinedTo ensure that all refugees enjoy equal rights and are treated with equal respect, regardless of colour, ethnicity, nationality, race, creed, and religion or immigration status.... ... ...To denounce racial intolerance in any form as incompatible with the kind of community we are and want to be.To maintain Wollongong as a culturally diverse, tolerant and open city ...I think at times of great sadness, tragedy and darkness, small examples like this rekindle one's faith and optimism in the essential goodness of humanity.799917:40:007999Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—It is a sad and solemn week, and I sincerely support the words of the previous speaker, but it would be remiss of me not to raise an issue that occurred in my electorate this week that saddened me. It involves a sporting event, the Australian PGA Championship, organised to be played in my electorate later on in November. I opened the Australian this morning and, when I eventually got to the second-last page, I read that Robert Allenby yesterday upset Australian PGA Championship organisers by forgoing pursuit of a third PGA Championship in favour of a big-money event in South Africa. This PGA event in Queensland is supported by local businesses, sponsors and the Maroochy Shire Council, which obtains its money from ratepayers in that shire. So everybody—the community, sporting groups et cetera—supports that great event.Robert Allenby is one of Australia's continuing success stories in the sport of golf, and he is the world's highest ranked player at the moment. We have had many world ranked players, and many of them have won tournaments all over the world and been great ambassadors for Australia. Of the modern era of golfers, you only have to look at Greg Norman as an absolute standout who ranked as No. 1 for a record period. We have many more Aussies playing on the world circuit such as Parry, Appleby and Senior, and the young guns Bowditch, Aaron Baddeley and Adam Scott. The modern golfing champions follow in the footsteps of some of the all-time greats like Peter Thomson— who, of course, was the father of the previous member for Wentworth—and Kel Nagle, David Graham, Bruce Devlin and Bruce Crampton. All of these champions, whether young or old, have a number of things in common: they are very talented, they work hard, they practise every day and they are totally focused. But the most important thing about these golfers is that, before they succeeded, they were all amateurs. When you join a golf club and pay your fee, part of that fee is a contribution to the golf union. In Queensland, that money is paid to the Queensland Golf Union. So every young player and every old player, every good golfer and every hacker—like me—makes a contribution of $17.60 towards the Queensland Golf Union, and that money is used for nurturing juniors, for organising amateur tournaments and for sending young Australians overseas. These amateurs nurture the future of professional golf, so every professional golfer owes every golf club member for their career opportunities. Whether they are a scratch golfer from Royal Melbourne or a 27 handicapper playing on sand greens in Western Queensland, they all contribute to the opportunities given to professionals. When the fame, glory and money eventually come to professional golfers, I urge them not to forget their roots, not to forget the recreational golfers, the families and juniors who actually paid for their initial success. I urge all those successful professionals to support the Australian tour events and put something back into their sport.As I said, Robert Allenby has decided not to come to Coolum and play in this event; instead, he is playing at the Sun City tournament in South Africa. He is chasing the money. The fact is that the prize money for last place in the Sun City tournament is more than the prize money for first place in the Australian PGA tournament. I say to Robert Allenby and to many of his colleagues: you owe it to people who supported you to support them. Put something back into your sport and put something back into your country.800017:45:008000Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Today, around 25,000 children died directly because of their poverty. The scale of continued poverty throughout the world is seen by some as a sign that international cooperation and development assistance are a waste of time. However, I believe that this is not what those 25,000 lives tell us. They tell us that already we have come a long way in reducing poverty but that we still have a fair way to go. In the last 40 years, aid and development have seen life expectancy in developing countries rise by 20 years. The proportion of illiterate people has halved, average incomes have doubled, access to safe drinking water and sanitation has doubled, and the number of children dying each day has dropped from 40,000 to 25,000. This is the fastest improvement of human welfare in history, and aid has played a critical role in these advancements.However, levels of overseas aid have been falling, debt repayments continue to be unsustainable for many countries, poor governance is still common in the developing world—with widespread corruption, inequality and bad economic management—massive agricultural subsidies by Western countries help to keep people in poverty and HIV-AIDS is a scourge, particularly in Africa.Aware of these problems, the UN General Assembly has put forward a set of development goals for the year 2015 called the millennium development goals. There are eight main goals: halve the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day; halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger; ensure that boys and girls alike complete primary schooling; eliminate gender disparity at all levels of education; reduce by two-thirds the under-five mortality rate; reduce by three-quarters the maternal mortality ratio; reverse the spread of HIV-AIDS, malaria and other major infectious diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and, lastly, develop a global partnership for development by raising official development assistance, expanding market access and encouraging debt sustainability. Those may sound like just a fine set of words. They look good on paper, but will they be any different from all the other sympathetic words spoken at international conferences? I would like to think that these goals represent a summary and consolidation of all the major development targets set during the 1990s. These goals profit from the knowledge of what failed during this decade. The goals cover all the major development and poverty reduction issues. They are idealistic but, I believe, achievable. They are providing a framework of accountability to the poor for both developed and developing governments. In a nutshell, the achievement of the goals will require a number of changes: firstly, better governance in many developing nations; secondly, an increase in aid quality and quantity; and thirdly, sustainable debt reduction through the opening up of markets and reductions in trade subsidies by wealthy countries.Action to date on the goals includes both the UN and the World Bank having taken on the MDGs as the heart of their development agendas. A number of European countries have committed to increase their level of aid, and a number of other countries—including Norway, Ireland and New Zealand—have recently reviewed their aid program with the MDGs in mind. Unfortunately, so far the Australian government does not seem to have taken serious steps to make good our stated commitment to the goals.I must admit that the quality of Australian aid has improved in recent years. There is now a greater focus on poverty reduction, providing basic services and credit for the poor, and improving governance and human rights. However, our country does not seem to have yet grasped the significance and opportunity offered by the millennium development goals. The World Bank estimates that we will need to double our aid from the current 0.25 per cent to about 0.50 per cent of our GNP. We will also need to make sure more of our aid goes to basic social services, such as primary education, primary health care, and clean water and sanitation. We also need to significantly improve our coordination with other aid donors and allocate much more aid to the poorest countries rather than just to those in our region. On International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, it is time for us to join with other nations to take real and concrete steps to build a fairer world. Let us be as good as our word and seize this opportunity to help those who need our help the most.800117:49:008001Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I rise tonight to bring to the House's attention a magnificent product in burns therapy, which we are adopting in Western Australia through Royal Perth Hospital. It has been created by a company in Perth called Clinical Cell Culture, and I believe it should be made available to all of Australia. In fact, it should be used far more than it is in the current situation with our victims of the terrorist bombings in Bali.Clinical Cell Culture provides spray-on skin for the treatment of burns, scars and chronic wounds in major areas. By using a small biopsy from a patient's skin, C3 skin culture laboratory grows enough of that skin in as few as five days to send back to the surgeon to treat the patient with his or her own skin. The technology is helping burns patients heal faster and suffer less pain, and it may reduce scarring. It also helps combat problems that arise when there is limited donor skin available for grafting in the case of large burns, and there is no tissue rejection, as the cells are harvested from the patient's own skin.C3 culture can use skin after as little as five days compared to 14 to 21 days, which is the normal time frame required to grow cultured skin grafts. A wound taking 10 days to heal has a four per cent risk of lifelong visible scarring, whereas a wound taking 21 days to heal has a 78 per cent chance of scarring. C3 hastens the healing process and therefore may help to reduce scarring. The advantage of this technology is that it produces treatment cells faster than other areas. There is no tissue rejection, because the cells are harvested from the patient. It is very cost-effective, because patients spend a lot less time in hospital. It is easy to use and apply. I have spoken with Fiona Wood, a surgeon at Royal Perth Hospital, who has been using this technology when dealing with burns victims from the Bali bomb blasts. I believe that the product has been used very effectively. For example, in one case where a patient had 30 per cent burns over their body, you would normally require a 30 per cent skin graft in order to treat them. As you can imagine, with that much loss of skin, the patient would suffer an enormous amount of trauma. In this instance, that graft has been able to be reduced to only 10 per cent and, by applying the patient's own cells, treatment has been very effective. A cost-benefit analysis should be carried out to assess the benefits, which would include patients spending less time in hospital and far less scarring. A lot of young people have been brought back to Australia from Bali suffering from tremendous burns, and I believe that, if we can reduce the scarring, it would be a significant benefit. To give you an idea of the sorts of conditions that people are working under at Royal Perth Hospital, most of these surgeons have not slept since Sunday night. They have been working full-time trying to treat the patients.This product is being used extensively in Perth, but it is not being used that widely in the eastern states. It is also being used to great effect in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and South Africa, but not here. One of the reasons is lack of funding. Because the cost of the treatment comes out of the hospital's budget, they are often loath to use it and instead use traditional methods. I call on the government to investigate the benefits of this technology, with a view to providing funds so that this technology can be used, in this instance, for the Bali burns victims. Were the government to investigate this matter, I am sure they would find that this technology is cost effective and that it would be of great benefit to those who have suffered burns as a result of the terrorist acts in Bali.Question agreed to.House adjourned at 5.54 p.m.Notices8002The following notices were given:QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price to move: (1) That standing order 28B be amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (b): (ba) annual and additional estimates contained in the appropriation bills presented to the House shall stand referred for consideration by Members of the relevant committee (as determined in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) for the consideration of annual reports), and, for the purposes of this consideration: (i) six Members of each committee, determined by the committee in each case, shall consider the estimates; (ii) the Members of the committee selected to consider the estimates shall meet with Members of the relevant Senate legislation committee so that the Members and Senators may meet together for the purposes of considering the estimates; (iii) members of the relevant House and Senate committees, when meeting together to consider estimates, shall choose a Member or a Senator to chair the joint meetings; (iv) the provisions of Senate standing order 26 shall, to the extent that they are applicable, apply to the consideration of estimates under this paragraph, and (v) that, upon the completion of joint meetings at which evidence is received or written answers or additional information considered, it shall then be a matter for the Members of the relevant committee to consider the terms of any report to the House on the estimates. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price to move: (1) That a Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing be appointed to inquire into: (a) proposals for the annual estimates and the additional estimates for the House of Representatives; (b) proposals to vary the staff structure of the House of Representatives, and staffing and recruitment policies; and (c) such other matters as are referred to it by the House; (2) That the committee shall: (a) in relation to estimates— (i) determine the amounts for inclusion in the parliamentary appropriation bills for the annual and the additional appropriations; and (ii) report to the House upon its determinations prior to the consideration by the House of the relevant parliamentary appropriation bill; and (b) in relation to staffing— (i) make recommendations to the Speaker; and (ii) report to the House on its determinations prior to the consideration by the House of the relevant parliamentary appropriation bill; (3) That the committee consist of the Speaker and 11 other members, 6 members to be nominated by the Chief Government Whip or Whips and 5 members to be nominated by the Chief Opposition Whip or Whips or any independent Member; (4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair; (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting; (6) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; (7) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting; (8) That the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the members of that subcommittee; (9) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the public proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum; (10) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records; (11) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place; (12) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House; (13) That the committee have leave to report from time to time; and (14) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price to move:That the standing orders be amended by amending standing order 94 to read as follows:Closure of Member94 A motion may be made that a Member who is speaking, except a Member giving a notice of motion or formally moving the terms of a motion allowed under the standing orders or speaking to a motion of dissent (from any ruling of the Speaker under standing order 100), “be not further heard”, and such question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price to move:That standing order 129 be omitted and the following standing order substituted:Presentation of petitions129 At the time provided for the presentation of petitions, the following arrangements shall apply to the presentation of petitions certified to be in conformity with the standing orders: (a) in respect of each petition, the petitioner, or one of the petitioners, may present the petition to the House by standing at the Bar of the House and reading to the House the prayer of the petition, and (b) where a petitioner is not able to present the petition in accordance with paragraph (a) of this standing order, the Member who has lodged the petition may present it to the House by reading to the House the prayer of the petition.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price to move:That the standing orders be amended by inserting the following standing order after standing order 143:Questions to committee chairs143A Questions may be put to a Member in his or her capacity as Chair of a committee of the House, or of a joint committee, in connection with the work or duties of the committee in question.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price to move:That the standing orders be amended by inserting the following standing order after standing order 145:Questions without notice—Time limits145A During question time: (a) the asking of each question may not exceed 1 minute and the answering of each question may not exceed 4 minutes; (b) the asking of each supplementary question may not exceed 1 minute and the answering of each supplementary question may not exceed 1 minute; and (c) the time taken to make and determine points of order is not to be regarded as part of the time for questions and answers.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price to move:That the following amendment to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of this session: Questions from citizens148A (a) A Member may give notice of a question in terms proposed by a person who lives in the Member's electoral division. (b) Notice of a question given under this standing order may show the name of the person who has proposed the question. (c) A Member may not give more than 25 notices of questions under this sessional order in a calendar year. (d) Nothing in this standing order may be taken to mean that a Member must give notice of a question proposed to the Member by a person who lives in the Member's electoral division.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price to move:That this House: (1) refers to the Standing Committee on Procedure the draft Framework of Ethical Principles for Members and Senators and the draft Framework of Ethical Principles for Ministers and Presiding Officers dated 1995; (2) seeks advice from the Procedure Committee as to the continuing validity or otherwise of the drafts; and (3) requests the Procedure Committee to confer with the Procedure Committee of the Senate in its consideration of these matters.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price to move:That standing order 145 be omitted and the following standing orders be adopted:145A The answer to a question without notice shall be relevant and: (a) shall be concise and confined to the subject matter of the question; (b) shall relate to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, to proceedings in the House, or to any other matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible; and (c) shall not debate the subject to which the question refers.145B The standing orders that apply to the asking of a question without notice shall generally apply to the answer.145C An answer to a question on notice shall be relevant to the question and shall be provided to the Member who asked the question within 30 days.2002-10-17—————The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members8005800509:40:008005Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Each and every Australian values Medicare, none more so than those in the electorate of Lilley. They value the security and the affordability it brings to our most basic need: our personal health and wellbeing. Sadly, Medicare is under threat. This threat results from a multitude of forces, aided by a hostile government that will not address the problems and refuses to provide adequate resources. What we are witnessing is the death by a thousand cuts of Medicare, as shown by the imminent closure of one clinic in the Lilley electorate. This clinic has been practising for 34 years but it can no longer get replacement full-time doctors. It is also shown by the decline in the number of services being bulk-billed: a drop of eight per cent over the past two years locally. This equates to approximately 2,000 doctor visits per week where patients are now being hit with up-front payments. This is hurting families, seniors, the sick and the disabled.My office regularly gets calls and letters from pensioners and families who are concerned they will no longer be able to afford the medical attention that they require. Graeme Bell of Aspley is one of those pensioners. Graeme has hereditary kidney failure and must see his doctor every month to get prescriptions and blood test referrals. The surgery has just announced a $10 fee to cover the Medicare gap, and as Graeme's kidneys slowly deteriorate the frequency of his visits to the doctor will have to increase. The $60 per month that Graeme will need to cover these consultations will put a big dent in his pension, but he also knows that he must see his doctor to survive.Melanie Rubie of Nundah is the mother of two young boys: Jack, aged six, and Max, aged three. Melanie does not consider the family poor, but she has to budget to pay the rent and the bills and to buy the shopping and the petrol. They manage, but things get a little tight prior to her husband Glen's payday on a Thursday. So, when Max accidentally hit Jack with a No. 3 wood and split his head open last Tuesday, Melanie was a little short of cash. New to Brisbane, Melanie took Jack to a local surgery, but they did not bulk-bill. She then saw a sign advertising bulk-billing at a surgery at Clayfield and rushed Jack there, only to be told that the first visit must be paid up front. She was in a dreadful position.These are just two of many cases that I have dealt with in my local area that highlight the effect the decline in bulk-billing services in Lilley is having on pensioners and families under financial pressure. These financial pressures will increase for families if they are faced with up-front consultation fees for more than one family member at a time: say, for asthma attacks or when the flu hits. The latest Medicare statistics show that the cost of a visit to a GP who does not bulk-bill has already risen by 44 per cent in just six years. Lilley has many elderly people and family groups who can ill afford the additional costs associated with visiting their GPs. In the past, the Medicare system has provided them with access to health services based on need rather than on capacity to pay; they have not had to make the choice between paying a bill or visiting their doctor. But the rapid decline in bulk-billing is turning what should be a necessity into a luxury. Now, access to health care depends upon their wealth, not upon their health care needs. 800609:43:008006Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—I wish to talk about a range of new services in Rosebud, Rye and Dromana across a field of government activities. The first service upgrade is one for the elderly: an increase in bus services which has been enabled by a $500,000 grant which local state member Martin Dixon and I fought long and hard for, in conjunction with the community. I congratulate the community. This means an increased number of bus services and an increased reach for those elderly members of the community who rely upon the public transport system. It was a long overdue decision by the state government, and I pay tribute particularly to Martin Dixon for his efforts.The second service upgrade is one for Rosebud Hospital: a $500,000 grant to the emergency services centre for an upgrade. The upgrade to the emergency ward is something which, prior to the last election, we recognised was a priority to fight for. We worked with the community to achieve an outcome which will increase the quality of service. I am delighted to announce this grant and to confirm that the work is currently under way. In particular, it will lead to an increase in the monitoring capacity and the technical capacity within the emergency services ward.The third area of service improvement which I wish to discuss is in the area of education for people in Rosebud, Rye and Dromana. Within the next month, I will have the good fortune to open the new buildings for the Rye Primary School, which have been largely and significantly funded by the Commonwealth. That is a tremendous outcome for the people in Rye, in particular for the parents and the children. The town is going ahead. It will host the Australian sand sculpting championships next year, which has become an extraordinary tourism event. To see these basic services provided is tremendously gratifying, and I congratulate all members of the community who have worked towards them.We are working on an additional educational function with the Dromana Secondary College, in particular with the principal there, David Barclay. We are attempting to upgrade facilities at Dromana Secondary College so as to focus on environmental and outdoor education needs. We are working on a third educational element with Rosebud TAFE. Only last week I met with the members and staff of Chisholm Institute to map out the long-term plan for expanding services, particularly within the hospitality, tourism and services area. Taken together, this package of services for individuals within Rosebud, Rye and Dromana is an important step forward. It is only a part of the way, but they are the things we said that we would work on and I am delighted with the progress we have made to date.800609:46:008006Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I was extremely privileged to present six National Service Medals to constituents of mine on Friday, 11 October. As people would know, there were two national service schemes. The 1951-1959 scheme had 98 days of military training. The 1965-1972 version was for two years service in the Regular Army. In 1971, it was shortened to 18 months. It is no credit to governments of all persuasions since 1959 that they have not acknowledged until now the compulsory service of the 308,000 Australians who served. It is a travesty that it has taken 43 years from the end of the first scheme before a formal thank you can be delivered. That we now have a National Service Medal is significant to our former national servicemen and their families. Last Friday I saw delight, pride and deep appreciation in the eyes of the recipients and their families when they gathered in my office for the presentation ceremony. Partners, children and grandchildren looked on with great and apparent pride as I presented the medals to the recipients. Over afternoon tea, as is usually the case, I heard stories of camaraderie and friendship, tales of men going over the wall and banter that reflected the diversity of a group drawn together by the common thread of a compulsory military national service. Even though the presentation was so long after the actual service, it was abundantly clear to me that these national servicemen regarded their service with great pride.I congratulate Ian Plunkett, Ray Buckland, Vern Oakley, Glen Wells, Ian Langdon and Roger Joseph for their service to Australia. I remember one of the younger people hanging back to tell me quietly that the presentation had made her father-in-law so very happy. Her sincerity and solemnity brought tears to my eyes. After the ceremony I received a letter from Ray thanking me for the presentation. Among other things, he said:Although these medals may seem to others as insignificant, I know that I shall wear it with pride in the knowledge that I did something for a short time for my country, be it so little.I would like to say to Ray and to the other recipients of that medal: your contribution was significant and your service is valued by your country. I am sorry that it has taken so long to say thank you to you and to all the other national servicemen who served our country.800709:49:008007Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—It is my sad duty today to bring to the House's attention the passing of the Deputy Chairman of the Yarrabah Community Council, Lloyd Fourmile. Sadly, Lloyd passed away over the weekend and the community is very much in mourning. What makes it even more tragic is that Lloyd was 43 and died of a massive heart attack, something that we see far too often within our Aboriginal community. There are tragic consequences when so many bright young men who are really making a difference within their communities have their lives cut so short.Lloyd was very active. He started his political career back in the early 1980s when he was elected to the Yarrabah council. He served a term as chairman of the council. In 1983 he was named the Indigenous Person of the Year for his advocacy of Aboriginal rights. He went on to be Chairman of the Aboriginal Coordinating Council—a very responsible job—in Far North Queensland. In that job he won a tremendous amount of respect from both the Aboriginal community and those outside the community. He was also an ATSIC regional councillor. More recently, he went back to his roots, back to Yarrabah, and held the position of deputy chair of the council.Lloyd was a very religious man. He was the local minister at St Albans Church of England. He was well respected in that regard. He has a young wife, Melita, and five beautiful children: Gerald, Natasha, James, Jo Anne and Esmereld. I am proud to be able to call Lloyd a good friend. I know the community is very saddened by this tragic loss, especially as he was so young. As I was coming here today to pay my respects to Lloyd, I spoke to the current Chairman of the Yarrabah Community Council, Peter Yeatman, who told me that another young man, Vivienne Miller, aged 46, who was a ganger on their CDEP, passed away from a heart attack yesterday. That is a double blow to the community. We are losing too many of our young Indigenous people to this disease. It is a tragedy. There must be something we can do better. My prayers and thoughts go out to Melita and the children and to the Yarrabah community on their tragic loss. 800809:52:008008Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—There are many problems in Australia at the moment, and every member's office gets many calls about all sorts of issues, but I do not think any issue is as urgent or has such long-term effects as the slow death of bulk-billing. Every day my office in Ipswich takes many calls from people who have problems with the current system—not so much with the system itself but with the way the system is being administered and the way the system is declining. So many Australians rely on the system, and yet bulk-billing and Medicare are under threat. As we all know, bulk-billing has been diminishing at an alarming rate. In 1996, when the Howard government came to power, bulk-billing was peaking at around 80 per cent. Unfortunately, services that are provided under Medicare are now only about 73 per cent of medical services and declining. The average copayment for patients seeing a GP is around $12. It is up from about $8, which is an incredible rise of 44 per cent in the actual copayment. That is an incredible increase, especially in the face of so many other increases from government, including the GST and the higher cost of living. There has also been a decrease in the amount of disposable income for low-income earners—not for everybody in the community but for low-income earners, and particularly for families.The greatest increase in costs is always going to be in the regional and rural areas of the country. In the electorate of Oxley, the story is no different. While the overall figure for the decrease in bulk-billing is around six per cent, that figure is much higher in rural towns and regions because there are fewer services there in the first place. Many coalition members would understand that because they represent many of those communities. Our Medicare and bulk-billing systems have been the envy of just about every other country in the world, but they are now both under threat. And there is no doubt that they are under threat from the government. It is the government that is the threat to the system. I do not think anybody today believes that the government either cares for or will not destroy these systems given a bit more time. For ordinary families, this is nothing short of an absolute disaster. They face the crisis of having to pay up-front fees to their GPs and doctors. That is not uncommon. This causes worry and concern for the elderly, who need regular visits just to maintain their health, and they are the ones who suffer the most. I think it is a tragedy that this government is allowing the system to die. I remind people that about 20 years ago John Howard made a very clear statement: he said he was going to put a knife in the belly of Medicare and it did not matter how long it took him. That knife is now out of its sheath and in the belly of Medicare. That was done by this government and this Prime Minister. (Time expired)800809:55:008008Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10—I rise today to draw the House's attention to the Bogan shire in the electorate of Parkes. This is based around the town of Nyngan and is one of our small but very strong communities. After the last budget, I was contacted by Ray Donald, the Mayor of Bogan shire, because he felt that the Bogan shire could not afford to have its Roads to Recovery money, or one-third of it, set back to the final year. I informed him of the special hardship provisions which the Deputy Prime Minister had put in train for any shire that was having a particularly hard time or that had commitments, jobs at risk or plant that had been purchased for special reasons. I am very happy to announce that the Shire of Bogan, based in the town of Nyngan, has been able to get that money back in this current financial year. That is going to save jobs and will allow 30 kilometres of resheeting on local roads. Nyngan is suffering more than most from the rigours of the drought. Farmers in that area are facing their second total loss of a crop. It is a town that is very resilient. In Nyngan recently, as the drought was really starting to rear its ugly head, three new shops opened in the main street. I spoke to the shopkeepers and they were all very confident, despite the fact that until now Nyngan has had a dwindling population and despite the fact that it has been a struggle in that area, with mines tending to slow down their production. There is, though, another mine in the region with a very real prospect of commencing operation, one hopes, in the near future. This is a town with a big heart and a very competent council. It has been recognised, as it always has been by this government, that small, strong communities have to be supported. When particular hardship was felt under this program, the government made sure that the Shire of Bogan and the town of Nyngan were able to get that money back. Ray Donald and the council will be able to continue, as they always have, to service the people in that community, as the government hopes to, right throughout the electorate.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills8009R16348009Debate resumed from 19 September, on motion by Mr Truss:That this bill be now read a second time.09:58:008009Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Amendment Bill 2002 will enable levies and charges to be appropriated to Animal Health Australia to repay the Commonwealth for underwriting the livestock industry's share of the cost of responding to emergency animal diseases. In 1998, the then Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, otherwise known as ARMCANZ, agreed to develop `a national policy on funding principles for pest and disease emergency management'. The Australian Animal Health Council, known as Animal Health Australia, undertook industry consultation and coordinated the development of a new emergency animal disease response cost sharing arrangement. The government advises that this arrangement has broad industry support. This arrangement, known as the emergency animal disease response agreement, provides for cost sharing between affected industries and government. It replaces a previous Commonwealth-state agreement.Under the EADRA, the Commonwealth will underwrite the cost of reacting to an emergency animal disease outbreak, subject to an appropriate repayment scheme involving participating industries. Livestock industries subject to this arrangement will fund their responsibilities through a new animal disease levy. The levy will initially be set at zero, with the exception of the honey and bee industry. This industry has chosen to impose a levy to create a funding reserve. The new animal disease response levies and charges will be imposed on participating industries by regulations under the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999. To allow the repayment arrangements to come into law, it is necessary to amend the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-Stock Industries) Funding Act 1996. These amendments will enable repayments to be appropriated to the AAHC from consolidated revenue and to be used to repay the Commonwealth. Once a debt to the Commonwealth is known, the emergency animal disease levy will be activated and the levy funds will flow to the Commonwealth. These funds will then be disbursed to the AAHC. The AAHC will manage the funds on behalf of the relevant industry and repay the industry's debt to the Commonwealth. The bill provides for any levy funds collected in excess of the Commonwealth debt to be redirected to the promotion or maintenance of animal health, including redirection to the industry's research and development corporation. The levy funds redirected to R&D will not be matched by the Commonwealth. The government, particularly the current minister for agriculture, has a less than outstanding record on support for Australia's rural industries. His ongoing war of words with the beef industry's peak bodies, and his bungling of the administration of Australia's US beef quota are good examples of his recent performance. Nonetheless, it seems that the minister has, in this instance, been prepared to work cooperatively with Australia's livestock industries to develop a new animal disease response agreement. On that basis, I am pleased to advise that the bill before the House this morning has the support of the opposition.10:02:008010Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—The livestock industries have a very significant impact on my electorate, and so I am very interested in these issues, particularly those that affect important questions such as animal health. The provisions of the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Amendment Bill 2002 make it possible for us to be better prepared to ensure the future of animal health in important rural areas such as mine. The establishment of the Animal Health Council and the decision to enable the Animal Health Council to impose levies and charge fees to raise money for the purpose of dealing with animal disease emergencies is obviously a very positive thing. The member opposite did have some cheap shots at the minister, and that is not surprising. But the bottom line is that the opposition is supporting this bill, and so it should.We all know that the ramifications of failure to effectively provide for ongoing animal health in our country would be very dire to the people of Australia. The obvious example that is always trotted out on occasions such as this is foot-and-mouth disease. There have been some very significant studies done and reports written on foot-and-mouth disease that in recent times have produced some quite alarming information about the impact that the threat of an outbreak of a serious exotic animal disease in our country would have on our economy and on the lifestyles of people, such as those in my electorate, who are reliant on these livestock industries. On a more widespread basis, the general impact that it would have on communities of people within our country is very significant. I would like to again go through some of the implications of that disease because it is something that we have to prepare for all the time. We have to be on our guard.Foot-and-mouth disease is caused by a virus that spreads through the air. It means that stock over a wide area can be quickly infected, within 48 hours. Cattle are most susceptible, although pigs can also be badly affected. Signs that they have been infected by foot-and-mouth disease include fever, drooling and a reluctance to move. They get blisters on their snouts and tongues and between their hooves or on their feet, and this becomes very painful to the animals. As a consequence, one of the first things that usually has to happen is that all affected and in-contact animals have to be slaughtered to eradicate the disease. Recent studies have shown that the impact of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Australia would be a loss of markets and rural production that would immediately cost Australia $6 billion, plus $8 million for every day that the outbreak lasts. Major overseas markets that we rely on to buy our product would be lost and could not be regained until at least 12 months after the end of the outbreak. So you can see that an outbreak of that disease in Australia—in the Australian land mass—would be absolutely disastrous for our rural production and is something we must work to avoid. For that reason I commend the minister for the steps he has been taking to promote things such as the provision of improved veterinary services in country areas. It is an important priority that the government has to pursue to ensure that we are fully prepared. The provision of this bill takes this one step further because it enables us to raise funds within those industry groups and to disperse them for the purposes of fighting the disease should an outbreak occur. It also provides for left-over moneys that have been raised through that process to be used for improved research and development in that livestock field. One of the consequences of all that will also be the promotion of greater awareness of the need for animal health. This does not just mean people who are involved in the veterinary field or in science or even in politics; it involves people down there at the grassroots having a greater understanding of how important it is that they understand the proper procedures that need to be undertaken in the event of an outbreak. It is interesting to note that the honey bee industry has taken a view that is a little different from everyone else, and has decided that it wants to build up a reserve. I think that shows it being proactive, and it deserves recognition. It also shows that the bill can accommodate different approaches from industries in the way they would like to pursue this, so it is entirely well framed and well put together.I would like to take the opportunity to point out that, when people speak about rural industries in Australia, they have to recognise some of the great developments that have been going on in those industries. One that I would like to highlight is the growth in the pork industry recently. In my area, that has been an absolute revelation because it was not that long ago when there were very dire predictions being made and the media Australia-wide were saying that the pork industry was shot and was not going anywhere. At the time I think they were blaming Canadian imports for difficulties within the pork industry. But all credit to the minister and the government—they have turned it around very effectively. I think members might recall the Prime Minister going to Wondai, which is just north of my electorate, and meeting with angry pork producers who were worried about those Canadian imports. The Prime Minister went there and said, `I don't have a magic wand, but I am going to look into this and I will come up with a proposal for a way forward.' I have to say that, in consultation with the minister, he certainly came up with a very good package of measures, because that industry has not looked back. It has taken off in meat works such as Swickers at Kingaroy. There has been a huge expansion, and the technology that is now being applied there is light years ahead of the way it was.The consequences of a potential disease outbreak is something I really hate to contemplate. After that initial decision by the government to change its approach to the pork industry, it offered assistance in the form of a very significant package directed in such a way that it allowed our producers to export, and that got them off to the right start. But then, blow me down, we had a big outbreak of disease in Malaysia. We in this country were very fortunate because our pork industry was able to capitalise on that even more. The embryonic changes that the minister and the Prime Minister had put in place were immediately given this turbo-charged boost by the outbreak of disease overseas. We have seen how the nipah virus absolutely devastated farmers in Malaysia and in other places. We should never assume that we are immune to such a thing in this country. One of the great advantages in this country is that in the pork industry our stock of pigs have really good health. Compared to other countries, our pork industry is very healthy. The fact that we are a remote country compared with the rest of the world has helped us to develop this great resource of health. If you consider the amount of money spent on drugs and veterinary support you need for an average pig in Australia, it is probably about a 10th of the amount you need to invest if you live in a country like the US. This puts us in a tremendously powerful position in terms of exporting our product to overseas markets, because we can say we do have a healthy herd of pigs. That is the situation here in this country, and we can use that as a way of promoting our product into overseas markets. That message has been getting through to them, and they are responding to it. At Swickers, as I said, there has been a huge expansion, and honestly the only problem there at the moment is that you just cannot get enough pigs to put through the place. If they could find more people growing pork out there then I am sure they could process it and find a market for it very quickly. Not only at Swickers but also at other meatworks across the country there is a huge increase in throughput. At the end of it all this means a huge increase in the number of available jobs and a huge increase in the local wealth of the communities that are supported by those industries.Animal health is a key factor in the pork industry. It is a core part of our business plan and we have to protect it with all the measures available to us. It is a very good thing to see a measure that provides individual industries with a degree of flexibility in the way that they plan—the honey bee industry demonstrates some thought in that regard—and to see a bill that provides all those different alternatives and then ensures that any surplus that remains after an emergency is available for research and development. I have made quite a deal of reference to the pork industry because I am very proud of the way it has been going. I know that in and across the area of Blair and in many of the areas that were previously in the dairy industry there has been this surge in the pork industry, and it has provided those communities with a great degree of relief and an alternative way to go. To do the minister credit, on several occasions the Dairy RAP scheme has provided money to enable the developments in the pork industry. The thing has fitted together very well. There was so much angst: first we had angst over the pork industry, and then we had angst over the dairy industry. In many cases, providing money through the Dairy RAP scheme to support new growth in the pork industry has worked very well. It has been effectively managed and very well put together. The communities that have recognised that opportunity are the ones that are really surging ahead. I would like to particularly point out that the management at Swickers have been very proactive in getting out there and talking up the opportunities in the pork industry. They have done things like establish the Burnett Pork Alliance. They have gone out into the community and established new arrangements for the growing of pigs. That has provided benefits not only for people who want to get involved in growing pigs but also for people who have feed mills and even for people who provide the hay for piglets and sows to lie on. We have whole farms that are just producing enough hay to support that great growth in the number of sows that are producing more pork for Australians to export. The industry is absolutely surging. However, not only the pork industry but also other industries such as the beef industry continue to be the backbone of our regions. We cannot contemplate in any way something that would so badly undermine that as would the outbreak of exotic disease. Rural communities depend on these industries, and we have to do everything in our power to provide them with the tools they need for their long-term future. Drought can wipe them out. It is a very difficult lifestyle for people who engage in that sort of activity. However, this government should provide them with measures that offer them some degree of comfort about long-term planning in their industries. I pay credit to the minister and the Prime Minister for the efforts that have gone into this planning. It has been well coordinated and the outcome is very positive.In my discussions I gave the example of foot-and-mouth disease. There have been outbreaks of other diseases that have caused big problems in the poultry industry and in other industries. It was not so long ago that there was a one-off outbreak of anthrax. Those sorts of things cause a ripple of concern that runs right across the rural parts of our country, and it is very important that we remain on our game. The provision of extra veterinary people out in the country to ensure that these things are detected early is an important part of the exercise. I am sure we are going to see more and more initiatives from this government to provide that kind of support because I know we have an eye on the ball in this case. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill. The bill is roundly supported by both sides of the House and I, in particular, support it.10:17:008013Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable members for Hunter and Blair for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the opposition for granting a speedy passage to this legislation, even though the member for Hunter tarnished his speech with a few personal insults that I do not think added anything to the quality of the debate but rather drew attention to his own underachievement.The Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Amendment Bill 2002 represents a significant step forward for animal health. As the honourable member for Blair rightly pointed out, animal health is the key to the future strength and vitality of our Australian livestock industries. What is so encouraging about this legislation is that it puts in place a mechanism to ensure that the costs associated with keeping our herds and our flocks healthy is shared between governments and the industry. The acceptance by the industry of its obligation to make a contribution represents a substantial leadership initiative by the industry, and I commend the farm industry organisations of Australia for their willingness to embrace this concept. Naturally, it is not going to be easy.I have been encouraging industries to put aside reserves so that they have something in stock should a disease outbreak occur. As the honourable member for Blair rightly pointed out, the honey industry has taken up this proposal to raise a levy early, when the industry is perhaps in the best circumstances to afford to put a bit aside, rather than to wait until after the disease has occurred when there will be heavy losses and the imposition of a levy would be difficult for the industry to bear. The meat industry is also proposing to use some of its reserves to ensure that it has something available to help should an emergency arise. The idea of building up a modest reserve in advance is to be commended to all industries.The honourable member for Blair also referred to the transformation that has occurred in the pork industry. There has been enormous growth in the industry and a huge demand from companies such as Swickers, Darling Downs and others to get increased production to keep their new and enhanced facilities operating at maximum efficiency. The pork industry has had a couple of very good years, although there are concerns now because of the likely high cost of grain in the next 12 months as a result of drought. With some falling prices for pork and some pressure in the Japanese market, the industry may well go through another difficult time. But the member for Blair is absolutely right in saying that the industry has been transformed and that it now has an export focus. Even though there are ups and downs in every primary industry, the longer term focus and prospects of the pork industry are certainly strong. The member for Blair also mentioned the need to address the concerns about the provision of adequate veterinary services in regional areas. He is aware that there is a major review currently being undertaken by Peter Frawley into the provision of veterinary services. He has been to most states and will be visiting others before the inquiry is complete. It is a major program, and he is being challenged by the evidence that is being given to him. We expect to have a report, hopefully, at the end of the year. It will give us an opportunity to look at what needs to be done, although a lot of the responsibility will rest with the states. Unfortunately, one of the problems we have in relation to surveillance of disease in country areas is the wind down in the state veterinary services. There simply are not people in the regional offices around Australia anymore who are able to go out and have a look around to see whether there may be problems with diseases or even to follow up a sick animal somewhere. In this day and age, farmers are reluctant to pay the cost of bringing a vet out to look at a sick animal, yet that could be the warning sign of something that could seriously affect our country. In the days when we had state government veterinary officers driving around and having a look, they would have stopped and looked at that animal and perhaps picked up an early sign. Those are key issues that we need to address. I am pleased that the Main Committee has seen fit to support this legislation, which will enable the new emergency animal disease response levies and charges to be paid to Animal Health Australia and any excess levies received to be redirected to fund promotion or maintenance of animal health, as well as research and development activities. As mentioned earlier, this legislation follows a detailed process which commenced in 1998. Governments and industry have worked together to develop a cost-sharing arrangement which would be adequate to deal with the scale of emerging animal diseases. A new cost-sharing agreement, the government and livestock industry cost-sharing deed in respect of emergency animal diseases, has been prepared by Animal Health Australia based on the outcomes of an exhaustive consultation process. This agreement is known as the emergency animal disease response agreement. The arrangements provide for the sharing of the eligible costs of a disease response by government and affected industries and will replace the previous Commonwealth-state cost-sharing agreement. The Commonwealth has agreed to underwrite the industry's share of the cost of reacting to an emergency animal disease outbreak on the proviso that those livestock industries agree to an appropriate repayment scheme. All of the current signatories have agreed that they will fund their responsibilities through the imposition of a new animal disease levy. To allow the repayment arrangements via a levy or charge to come into law, it has been necessary to amend the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Act 1996. The legislation has the full support of industry groups and producers. It establishes arrangements for the long-term funding of emergency animal disease outbreaks and so it assists in providing certainty for the planning of emergency animal disease responses. I commend the bill to the Main Committee and look forward to a successful new arrangement being put in place as a result of this legislation. Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills8015R16528015Debate resumed from 26 September, on motion by Mr Anthony:That this bill be now read a second time.10:25:008015Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I want to say from the outset that Labor has offered its support for the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Initiatives and Other Measures) Bill 2002. The measure to codify arrangements relating to nominees in the social security system is, on the whole, a welcome one. So, too, is the measure that assists children with disabilities and terminal conditions, and their families. However, notwithstanding our support for the bill, I want to express some concern about aspects of the nominee measure and to register my disappointment that the measure in relation to children with disabilities does not reflect all the concerns there are with the operation of carer payment rules.The legislative formalisations of nominees in schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the bill are primarily administrative initiatives. They provide specific guidelines on the role and obligations of nominees under the social security and family assistance laws. The amendments grant the secretary the authority to appoint a nominee to be responsible for correspondence and the necessary action and participation of a social security payment recipient, referred to as the `principal'. Under these amendments, the role of the nominee will vary, from bearing the responsibility of receiving principal correspondence to receiving a social security benefit and other payments on a principal's behalf. A correspondence nominee has a fairly straightforward role, being responsible for ensuring that the principal receives any notifications, requests and information from relevant government agencies. The amendments are clear on this. The amendments do not, however, provide clear protection for a nominee in relation to their obligation to ensure a principal's compliance with requests for government required information and appointments.The proposed section 123J outlines the responsibilities of correspondence nominees in advising principals of social security requests for information and appointments. The amendments strongly emphasise a correspondence nominee's duty to notify principals of such social security requests. However, there is a concern that, based on available information, it is difficult to assess the ramifications for a nominee should the principal not comply with a request. On the surface, the amendments imply that a nominee can be considered fully responsible for a principal's noncompliance with social security requests. However, the amendments appear to be inflexible in accounting for a principal's capacity to comply with requests and a nominee's ability to ensure compliance. Based on the amendments being considered, a failure to comply with social security requirements is primarily the responsibility of the nominee—that is, of the representative of the person receiving the payment. The nominee may therefore have to rely heavily on a good working knowledge of the social security system and somehow acquire an awareness of the flexibility that can sometimes be applied to special individual cases. The government has advised that each appointed nominee under these amendments will be assessed by a social worker and advised of their rights and obligations. They will also be given the opportunity to discuss and negotiate any problems that arise out of the noncompliance of a principal. The government has also assured that comprehensive information will be made available to existing and potential nominees. With an ageing population, the use of nominees will increase, so there also needs to be the assumption that many nominees will be new to the social security system. A person who is naive about the work of agencies such as Centrelink will no doubt find that the internal hostility, lack of genuine support and understanding within such agencies can make a simple exercise quite daunting. While there is no obligation for the government to implement designated case workers for new nominees, it is recommended that individuals be encouraged to quickly establish a sound working relationship with an individual staff member, perhaps a social worker, who can at least provide continued guidance for the Centrelink novice.Under these amendments, nominees can also receive a principal's social security benefit directly into a designated bank account, with the understanding that any financial obligation a principal may have—such as rent, bills and daily living—will be undertaken by the nominee. Existing nominees have this ability currently. There is a concern, however, that a principal may be vulnerable to exploitation from a nominee who does not have the principal's interest at heart. Proposed section 123E of the amendments grants the secretary the ability to review and revoke a nominee's status when it is found that the nominee is unable to fulfil their obligation. Current information does not, however, provide enough guidance on what circumstances can trigger a review and what matters are taken into account. There is an assumption that current review processes, such as investigation based on information from another interested party, would apply to the ongoing suitability of a nominee. This assumption, however, is not clearly indicated in the amendments.The government has advised that a significant number of anomalies with nominee payment arrangements—such as returned mail or failure to comply with Centrelink requests—are usually identified through administrative processes. There is also a current arrangement whereby Centrelink will investigate an allegation of nominee misuse from an interested party, but the interested party is usually another family member and is often considered hostile to the nominee. The government has assured that the current process to investigate the suitability of a nominee is sufficient to sustain the new formal nominee arrangements.I want to talk now about children with disabilities who have terminal conditions. In December 1999, the Department of Family and Community Services finished a review of measures relating to carer payments to parents of children with profound disabilities. That review made a number of recommendations to address inadequacies in the original legislation. Among those was the one before the parliament today. I commend the government for bringing it forward. The proposed amendment maintains the carers allowance for parents who maintain active treatment for a profoundly disabled child, even if the child is medically considered to have a terminal condition. The addition of new subsection 197(2) also allows a less intrusive diagnostic and restrictive criteria process for a medical practitioner to advise of a change in the status of a profoundly disabled child. Put simply, this means that a person caring for a terminally ill child with a profound disability will not have their payment jeopardised. I just want to record that this amendment was not accompanied by a further one to address the situation of children with disabilities who have high support needs but who do not meet the qualifications to enable their parents to receive the carer payment. A group of children identified in the 1999 review fits into this category. While the objective of the payment is to recognise the needs of those parents whose caring responsibilities to a disabled child prevent them from working, it is so narrowly drafted that the parents of many children whose disabilities are not as severe, but whose support needs are very high, miss out. Families caring for children with chronic illnesses such as cystic fibrosis, diabetes, epilepsy and PKU continue to miss out on the payment.Assessment for the carers payment should take into account the financial, social and emotional costs borne by families caring for children with severe disabilities. The problem is that the child disability assessment tool, which is used to determine the functional ability of the child, does not measure the care and attention demanded of the carer. As a result, many more families today are failing to qualify for financial support. Since the new assessment tool was introduced in July 1998, the Labor Party has received a constant stream of letters and phone calls from concerned and distressed parents struggling to care for children with severe disabilities.These parents caring for children with disabilities such as cystic fibrosis are struggling to keep their heads above water. Without the carers payment they are forced to meet the costs of pumps, masks, sterilising equipment, special diets, exercise programs and equipment out of their own pockets. These are substantial costs. It is often the case that the extraordinary efforts and care provided by parents are the very reasons that children are able to function from day to day, even when their life span is limited. Ironically, these efforts may also disqualify those parents from receiving the financial support. These families want an assessment tool that recognises the cost and time involved in providing care for their children. I urge the government to expand on what it is doing already for terminally ill children today.10:35:008017Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—I am delighted to rise to speak on the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Initiatives and Other Measures) Bill 2002 because ultimately it allows me to pay tribute to those people within our society and, in particular, within my own electorate of Flinders who are carers—who take care of those with severe disabilities, with terminal conditions or frailties which come either from congenital conditions or simply from the process of ageing, people such as Bill Skinner from Nyora. I spoke with Bill not long ago. Bill has a critically ill child with a congenital condition whom he has been helping for many years. It is a drain and it is a challenge. It draws upon the family. It has an impact on the financial capacity of the family. It has an impact on the emotional capacity of the family. But ultimately, as Bill pointed out, being able to show the care, the love and the attention is in itself very rewarding.This bill addresses the needs of carers. It does not solve everything because it cannot do that, but it goes part of the way to dealing with some of the problems. On that front, I believe it should be commended. I wish to address this bill in three stages: firstly, the background to the bill; secondly, the importance of the bill; and, thirdly, a more detailed consideration of the specific provisions and the way in which they assist carers and those from non-English speaking backgrounds. The background to the bill comes in the context of two primary needs which relate to family and community services support. The first is the need for a more simplified protection system for those from non-English speaking backgrounds or who are incapable of managing their own affairs. The second background contextual point is the need to provide relief for an additional range of carers of profoundly disabled children. Through a fairer and more sensitive qualification set of requirements this can be achieved. Against that background, what is the importance of the bill? If you look to the first of those points, this bill will simplify protection for those from non-English speaking backgrounds and those unable to handle their own affairs by providing for the appointment of correspondence nominees. What is a correspondence nominee? A correspondence nominee is someone who is able to manage the affairs of the individual who has an entitlement under the community services legislation on their behalf. So it is somebody who stands in the shoes of the person with the entitlement but who is capable of providing the assistance and who is authorised to provide the assistance.The current legislation is limited in its capacity to provide for correspondence nominees. Therefore, the changes are necessary due to two primary things. The first is an increase in the number of people from non-English speaking backgrounds qualifying for social security benefits, many of whom would otherwise be cut out or unable to obtain their benefits easily. The second change relates to the development of privacy issues. The nominee has great responsibility in handling all dealings with Centrelink on behalf of the recipient and it is necessary to formalise those arrangements.What occurs here? We clarify the duties and obligations of the correspondents and the payment nominees. In the current legislation, subscription of requirements for the nominees can be developed. The clarity of the nominees' obligations is necessary due to the common situation where the recipient is unable to organise their own financial affairs, they need a power of attorney, they are employed by a supported employment agency or they are under the age of 18 years. This is added to by the problem created by an ageing population. In my electorate of Flinders, currently 20 per cent of the population is over the age of 60, but it is expected that by the year 2021 over 35 per cent of our population will be over the age of 60. These figures are in the latest Victorian Department of Infrastructure figures and are based on previous census analysis.The second reason why the bill is important is that it will provide greater relief for carers of profoundly disabled children. Put simply, that means that more people will qualify for the carer payment. The current legislation has traditionally been limited in relation to its definition of `profoundly disabled'. Perhaps most significantly, that means that it may exclude some terminally ill children from receiving benefits. This bill makes the qualification requirements more general and less intrusive to children and their carers. The current qualification provisions require documentation of personal information and detailed symptoms of the children's illnesses, which may be difficult or onerous to obtain.Turning to the specific provisions of the bill: firstly, it repeals the current nominee provisions. Section 123A of the bill distinguishes between a payment nominee and a correspondence nominee. Section 123H of the bill defines and explains the duties of the correspondence nominee. Secondly, the bill clarifies the duties and obligations of both types of nominee. Section 123O states that nominees are required to act in the best interests of the recipient. Section 123J qualifies this and dictates that the requirement be made that Centrelink must be satisfied of the role of the nominee as acting on behalf of and in the interests of the recipient. Thirdly, the legislation extends the carer payment eligibility. In particular, people such as Bill Skinner, who has provided care with great love, compassion and attention over many years, and many more such people will have access to the carer payment as a result of this commendable legislation. Section 3 alters the definition of `profoundly disabled' to include children in the advanced phase of any terminal condition, the symptoms of which may not previously have been included. That is very important. Whenever a child is in the tragic situation of having a terminal condition, the parents will automatically be deemed to be capable of receiving carer support. It requires a single doctor's certificate certifying that the child suffers from an advanced stage of a terminal illness. Ultimately, that removes the need for intrusive and complicated medical certification.In conclusion, this bill reflects the government's commitment to simplifying the social security system and taking care of those with a non-English speaking background and those unable to manage their own affairs. The amendments are more inclusive and workable in the current social environment and recognise the critical role of parents who take care of children with terminal diseases. I commend the department for its work and the Minister for Family and Community Services for the bill. Above all else, it is an expression of compassion. For people like Bill Skinner from Nyora and others who provide care, it recognises the profound difficulties which they have had and the contribution they make to our society. I am delighted to commend this bill.10:45:008019Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Like the previous speakers, I rise to support the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Initiatives and Other Measures) Bill 2002. The amendments are very sensible and can only improve the operation of Centrelink and make things easier for people who need to be assisted at a time in their life when they are experiencing enormous difficulties. My electorate of Shortland is one of the oldest electorates within Australia. It is actually the 12th oldest electorate within the country. The amendment in relation to the role of the nominee and the appointment of a nominee is quite an important change within the legislation, and it is something that can help older people within the community and give them a sense of security.I recently had a social work student working on placement within my office. This social work student conducted a survey of some 560 older people within the electorate. The top two issues of importance that were identified were health and security. This legislation gives some form of security to older people. It gives them a sense that, if anything goes wrong as they get older, if they become incapacitated, their affairs will be looked after and their social security payments will be taken care of. They will not have that issue nagging at the back of their minds: what will happen if I get ill? They will know their payments will be handled in a way that will ensure their bills are taken care of and that there will be money there. They are the types of things that worry older people, so I think the amendments are very commendable.The proposed amendment in schedule 3 is in response to the review, conducted in 1999, of the measures to extend carer payment eligibility to carers of children with profound disabilities. One element highlighted in that report was the potential loss of active treatment when a profoundly disabled child was diagnosed for palliative care. The proposed amendment maintains the carers allowance for the parents and provides for the active treatment of that profoundly disabled child, even if the child is medically considered to be in a terminal condition. Palliative care can now be considered an alternative to active treatment rather than just assistance granted to a terminally ill, profoundly disabled child. I really believe that is a very important amendment. On 24 September, I made an adjournment speech in the House about a group of parents on the Central Coast who had children with rare and very serious genetic disorders. These parents had very severely disabled children—in a number of those cases, these children were terminally ill—and they had experienced enormous problems with accessing this allowance for their children. In some cases, forms did not fit the illness or the disabilities that these children suffered from. One parent told me that the only way they were able to be granted the allowance was to take their child into the Centrelink office and get the Centrelink officer to look at just how disabled this child was. This was a very traumatic occasion for the parents, and it caused great distress.Anything that can be put in place that will help parents with terminally ill children is extremely important. I visited one of the children at her home. This young girl suffers from spinal muscular atrophy, a progressive disease. Her prognosis is not good: she is terminally ill. As the disease progresses it will become harder and harder for the family. Removing this requirement would make it a lot easier for the parents because, believe me, there are a number of hurdles that they have to face each and every day. Not being able to access the kind of equipment and care that the children need is very traumatic. A paediatrician on the Central Coast—Dr Phil, as he is known to all the parents—met with me and all the parents when he came along to a barbecue that I attended. He emphasised to me how important it is that we give these parents every bit of support possible. He said that under no circumstances should we create more hurdles for them to jump or make the situation more difficult.This is a sensitive amendment; it is one that shows some compassion. I think it deserves support. I see that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs is in the chamber. I say to him that there are other changes that could be made that would help these parents and their children. I have met with people who, each and every day of their lives, face hurdles that I do not think we could possibly cope with. As members of parliament we tend to think that we work very long hours and that it is very stressful. We tend to burn the candle at both ends. One of the mothers I met has a 2½-year-old child. For the last 2½ years she has averaged three hours sleep a night. She has to constantly resuscitate her child. The difficulties that she has and the difficulties that exist within the system need to be addressed. I am sure the minister would be very interested to look at some of these issues. That concludes my contribution. As I have already indicated, I believe this legislation should be supported.10:53:008020Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I thank all the members from both sides who have participated in this debate for their genuine expressions about the intent of this change to the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Initiatives and Other Measures) Bill 2002 and for their worthy contributions. This change is necessary. The provisions in this bill will help many Australians who are caring for loved ones. In many ways the bill is another example of the government's commitment to implementing a simpler and more coherent social security system.The primary measure in this bill relates to nominees. The topic of nominees may not sound exciting to many but all those who participated in the debate recognise its enormous significance, particularly to the more than 300,000 people who assist recipients of Youth Allowance, the age pension and the disability support pension to manage their financial affairs. The provisions are recognition by the government of the important role played by nominees in the smooth operation of the social security system, particularly in delivering pensions and benefits to those most in need. The nominee provision in this bill repeals the existing provisions in relation to nominees in the social security and family assistance law, and replaces them with a comprehensive new set of provisions that provides for both payments and correspondent nominees. The new provision also addresses the issues concerning duties of payment nominees in relation to payment and their services. The bill also contains amendments that allow more people caring for terminally ill children to qualify for carer payments. Finally, these amendments give effect to the government's response to the review of the measures to extend payment eligibility to carers of children with a profound disability. I certainly wholeheartedly support this bill, and again I want to thank all those members of the House who have made a very good bipartisan contribution and also members of my department who have been very good lieutenants in putting this legislation together.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills8021R16478021Debate resumed from 25 September, on motion by Mr Tuckey:10:57:008021Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise this morning to speak in support of the Insurance and Aviation Liability Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. As the committee appreciates, the bill proposes minor amendments to three pieces of legislation. Two of the amendments we should note arise from the horrific events that shook the world on September 11 last year. In that respect, it is timely that we are considering this bill as our community struggles to understand the horrific events so close to us in Bali this week. Today I would like to send my deepest regards and empathy to the family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances of those who have suffered and continue to suffer.The Australian community and our good friends in the Balinese community are struggling to understand what has happened. That understanding is impossible to achieve because there can never be any legitimate, rational or human explanation. As we grapple with that fact as a community, it does not make it any easier to rationalise. In the meantime, there are thousands of individuals and organisations dealing more directly with the practical realities demanded by the situation. It must be remembered that these gallant individuals who have been propelled into these harsh realities are, at the same time, grappling to understand what has happened, as are we.I would like to take this opportunity to recognise and pay tribute to those people in particular. These are the people with the additional burden of having to clean up the mess, restore order, heal and attend to the wounded, console and feed those affected, drive and fly those involved, and attend to people's needs and safety in the process. The workers in the various departments of the Public Service, the police force and the associated instrumentalities, who are in the spotlight to find answers and who listen to pleas for news from families becoming more and more frustrated at the events as they unfold, are processing an extraordinary number of passengers and ensuring that security and safety systems are working. They are just a few examples of the people involved in this huge task at the moment. To many, as we all appreciate, this is their job, day in and day out. But the human impact of this tragedy on these workers and their families is no less because it is part of their profession, part of their dedication, part of their career. Workers who choose these jobs and professions, so far as I am concerned, are the very foundation of our great nation. I also pay tribute to the efforts of the volunteers and the unsuspecting participants in this extraordinary logistics exercise. Many volunteers in relief and support organisations tirelessly come forward to help out. The unsuspecting participants are those who, this time last week, may never have envisaged being involved in what they are now doing and doing so well.When watching this work on the 7.30 Report on Tuesday evening, I was struck and, to be honest, horrified at the report of Balinese children in their school uniforms, merely supplied with face masks and pairs of rubber gloves, being required to assist in picking up and sorting out body parts and human remains. This struck me hard in two ways. First—and I give them credit—I was struck by the community spirit and selflessness of those fine young Balinese schoolchildren. They were there in their school uniforms, rubber gloves and face masks, performing a job—on the face of it, a volunteer job—that many people simply could not or would not do. I simply say to those children on behalf of the Australian community: I know it was not easy, and thanks for all your assistance with the difficult task you did earlier this week. The second thing that struck me was: why on earth are we allowing this function to be performed by these young people of about 13 and 14 years of age? Perhaps we should have been quicker at getting our defence forces involved to perform this task. This is not something I desire to dwell on at this point, but the sight of those Balinese youths picking up body parts and moving corpses deserves particular comment and reflection.There are too many organisations to name in this expression of thanks and appreciation. However, on a domestic front, I also want to give special mention to the airline and airport industry and its workers. The management and staff at Qantas and Garuda Airlines and the people employed at Sydney, Darwin, Adelaide and Perth airports are deserving of special mention for their unprompted heeding of the call for help. Over the past 12 months, there have been some in our community—in fact, some in our own parliament—who have been quick to criticise Qantas and its market position. Every Australian should be aware of what Qantas has put in place in the past week—something I regard as over and above what could normally be expected of a commercial organisation. Qantas has again, as it did with September 11 and the collapse of Ansett last year, clearly demonstrated its commitment to Australia, our nation and our community. The extra flights and the specially discounted fares for families to join loved ones and accompany them home are prime examples of the assistance given by this great airline. We should also note that Qantas offered to bring the bodies of lost ones home at no cost. The government has accepted the Qantas proposal. I commend Qantas, its management and its staff for their wonderful and valuable contribution. The crisis part of this horrid process has almost passed, as the tireless work of the medical logistics experts bears fruit. But we know that this catastrophe will continue to impact on us all. The long, hard work of finding and identifying bodies is a prime example of the work outstanding that still needs to be done. The tireless medical processes to treat the horrific burns and injuries in some instances will go on for years, as will the long and frustrating processes of rehabilitation from burns and injuries and, in some instances, the more difficult task of learning to live without loved ones.The other process that will require patience, diplomacy and level-headed leadership is that of identifying the culprits. The evidence to date is pointing to an international connection and those bombings being part of an orchestrated terrorist act. We will not know that for sure until we know more about the events in Bali. As you appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, our community is sad and angry. But, as the Leader of the Opposition said on Monday afternoon in the House, we must be very careful to ensure that we deal with the facts and use established, proven international channels to find solutions and apportion blame. We should not as a community apportion blame where blame is not warranted. We must stick together and respect the United Nations' processes and decisions. I give credit to all Australian politicians who have made that point over the last couple of days. In doing so, I also send a message to the President of the United States that I was dismayed when, earlier this week, he sought to create a connection between the events in Bali and the difficulties confronting the international community at this point in time with respect to Iraq. They are separate issues, to be handled on the basis of merit through established processes.We as a community have resisted, and must continue to resist, any temptation to act from a sense of anger or revenge. In that context, I am as strong as any in supporting the fight to stamp out terrorism and in supporting the argument that we as a community should play a stronger role in the region in which we live. I want to squarely say today that, with respect to Iraq and the endeavours by the US President to bring the two issues together, I have concerns about the endeavours of the US Republican administration in considering going outside the authority of the United Nations with the intention of invading Iraq to bring about regime change. I am dismayed that comments made in recent times by the Howard government not only have indicated support for such unilateral action but also, in doing so, have supported the dangerous and irresponsible US administration concept of pre-emptive strikes.Let us be clear: the resumption of UN weapons inspections in Iraq and the use of whatever means are necessary—including, in the first instance, diplomatic and economic means—to achieve compliance are important. To this end, I reaffirm my belief in the sovereignty of all nations and states and in the primacy of the United Nations as a cooperative forum for progressing peaceful international relations. I want also to say in this context that, as far as I am concerned, we must be very clear that Australia is a sovereign nation. We must maintain our independence and look to our role to promote and pursue the fight against terrorism in our own region as our No. 1 priority. The last thing we should do, as I have said in my contribution today, is to act out of a sense of anger or revenge to seek to bring together the events in Bali this week and the difficult challenge that confronts us with respect to Iraq. They are separate and distinct issues. The President of the United States was wrong to seek to bring them together earlier this week. We as a community have resisted that temptation and we must continue to do so. In dealing with the issue of terrorism in our region, there is a clear need for leadership and unity. Now is the time, more than ever, to stand with our neighbours and form alliances and strategies to fight terrorism. The tragic incident in Bali demonstrates the need to remain ever vigilant. It also demonstrates the need to strengthen our arrangements with Indonesia. I note that the coalition government has continually attacked the opposition, since the elections of 1996, for having sought, prior to 1996, to develop a close working relationship with Indonesia. I simply say that we were right, when in government, to seek to maintain and develop that relationship with Indonesia in particular and, more importantly, with other countries in the region where these terrorist cells have been able to operate for some time.As the Leader of the Opposition has said, no stone should be left unturned in hunting down the perpetrators of this crime and bringing them to justice. Fighting terrorism will require a comprehensive and coordinated approach across the entire South-East Asian region. The opposition has correctly called for a regional summit on the elimination of terrorism in South-East Asia. As a nation committed to the processes of the United Nations, we must do our bit to develop and foster sound relationships and strategies in our region. In my view, this is a responsibility that we have, first, to our community and the region and, second, to the international community. In association with this responsibility and leadership role in our region, there are also opportunities for our country. This bill relates to the aviation industry and it is a useful industry to use to illustrate this point. Airservices Australia is an organisation which is wholly owned by the people of Australia. It has, I am proud to say, a highly skilled work force and cutting edge air traffic control and airways systems technology. The TAAATs system has been recognised internationally. Airservices, through its equipment, has the potential to contribute to the provision of safety services throughout our region.Australia makes significant aid contributions to many countries in our region, and I support those contributions. Why are we not using the skills, experience and technology we have available to contribute in practical terms to helping countries in our region, such as Timor, which can benefit from the TAAATs system? The Minister for Transport and Regional Services should take up those available opportunities and do a lot more to facilitate the growth of Airservices throughout our region and beyond. Part of our contribution as a region to the overall fight at a local level against terrorism could be the provision of proper air surveillance systems. Those comments aside, the opposition are prepared to work in good faith with the government to tackle any barriers to that objective, but we have to see some leadership initiatives from the Howard government on that front.There are a number of key parts to the detail of this bill. The first part is the amendment to the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959. This bill amends the act to correct an error that imposes a liability on foreign charter operations that is inconsistent with Australia's international obligations. The amendment has been mooted for some time. It actually formed part of the lapsed Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001. This was a bill that the minister botched and it lapsed when the parliament was prorogued. These changes correct the error and ensure that our application of these arrangements is consistent with our international obligations.The bill proposes changes to two other pieces of legislation. The changes arise from the events of September 11. The first is an amendment to the Damage by Aircraft Act 1999. The act is amended to exclude passive owners, such as lessors, from absolute liability for damage on the ground. As we all appreciate, September 11 last year threw the aviation and airport insurance industries into chaos. Initially it was thought that Australia's fairly unique protection for industry against insurance companies withdrawing cover was a major benefit to the aviation industry; however, it soon became clear that the unique provisions hampered reinsurance processes. This in turn impacted on the leasing and financing arrangements negotiated for aircraft operators in Australia. Following September 11, the insurance and finance industries raised concerns about the liability of passive owners for damage on the ground, noting that the Australian practice of having owners and operators jointly and severally liable was not common international practice. The amendment correctly removes the liability of passive owners who do not have an active role in the operation of the aircraft immediately before the impact occurred and where another person or organisation has the exclusive right to use the aircraft, and finance or other arrangements are in place. The amendment does not affect—and I stress this—the strict and unlimited liability of aircraft operators.The amendment to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 allows for the exemption by regulation of war and terrorism risk insurance from the cancellation and variation provisions of the act. The protection offered by the current act against cancellation simply meant that the bulk of Australia's aviation industry was not able to obtain cover once the existing contracts came up for renewal. I am sure we all appreciate that this is an industry which, because of its international nature, relies on the global insurance market for cover. Exempting war and terrorism cover from the cancellation and variation provisions of the act will place this class of insurance in the same position as the rest of the international aviation world. It will thereby enable Australian operators to have access to global markets for insurance. The Howard government has been forced to act on these important insurance issues for the right reasons. To not act would have left our industry players out on a limb. Post September 11, international leasing companies threatened to cease operations in and over Australia and the three other countries with similar arrangements. This then threatened the operation of some foreign carriers to and from Australia.Australia is now part of a global alliance of countries pursuing a global, coordinated solution to terrorism insurance for airlines, airports and associated organisations and operations. In the meantime, the government is correctly offering war risk indemnities to those aviation industry participants who have not been able to obtain sufficient war risk cover. The government has said that it is now proposing a charge for that indemnity, and it must ensure that the affected industry is fully consulted on that arrangement. I do not think anyone would expect the government to provide these indemnities indefinitely, so it is in everyone's interests to ensure that the ICAO scheme is expedited. I urge the government to keep Australian airlines and airports fully involved in that process.This bill is a timely response to events beyond our control and beyond the control of the industry. The aviation industry is incredibly exposed at this time and is incredibly sensitive to terrorism and security issues. When people are scared they stay at home. Since September 11, American and European airlines have been reeling and have found it difficult to survive financially. For example, the US government has contributed cash grants of $5 billion, along with $10 billion in loan guarantees. Recovery has been slow for American airlines, and the events of this week in Bali will make it even more difficult for the international aviation industry. This is thought to be a reaction by the travelling community to not only the events of September 11 and what has happened in Bali but also the hassle factor associated with additional security, taxes and general economic sluggishness. This is what has kept Americans at home. As the shadow minister for transport and infrastructure, I believe that Australia is fortunate that Qantas is strong and has rallied. I also say in passing that we should never forget that Qantas is a competitor in the international aviation industry. It is, therefore, exposed internationally and is sensitive to those world and now regional trends. One only has to look at the impact on the Qantas share price this week after the Bali bombings to see that Qantas is not as invincible as many would have us believe.I raise these comments today because I think that, unfortunately on some occasions, the Howard government tends to lose sight of this and only looks to domestic issues. I therefore refer in passing to the decision by the Howard government not to support Qantas's endeavours to recapitalise through increased foreign ownership. To associate that debate with the one on the further privatisation of Telstra was just plain wrong. They are separate issues and should have been considered on their merits. To saddle Qantas with a higher cost of borrowings because of domestic political concerns about tough decisions on foreign ownership of the airline possibly having an impact on the debate about whether to sell further shares in Telstra is plain wrong, short-sighted and ill thought out policy development. Surely Qantas has proven this week, yet again, that it is our national carrier that and it will always put Australia's interests first and foremost. The government was wrong to deny Qantas, and it should revisit that decision in due course.It is an entirely separate debate to the one about whether or not Telstra should be further privatised. It is a debate about our capacity as a nation to maintain a strong domestic airline industry and also, importantly, about our ability to compete internationally and, in doing so, to create further training and long-lasting employment opportunities in Australia. That is what the debate about Qantas and increased foreign ownership was about. It was about the capacity of Qantas to compete both domestically and internationally to maintain its strong competitive position and, in doing so—let us be clear—to keep jobs in Australia in association with keeping its headquarters in Australia and with maintaining board control in Australia. The facts speak for themselves. It is about time the Howard government took the politics out of policy and made decisions, such as those in respect of Qantas, based on merit, not on whether or not they may or may not have a domestic political impact. The Howard approach to policy development in Australia is a disgrace. It is not a policy process based on merit and the strength of arguments; it is based on polling and whether or not a decision may or may not impact on the next federal election. I simply say that, as a person elected to this parliament, I am vitally concerned with best policy. I think the department know that when they come into my room to talk about legislation before the parliament, and the attitude of the opposition to proposals, be it this bill or whatever by the Howard government, they get more than a fair hearing. The opposition goes out of its way to make sure that issues are not considered on the basis of political considerations but are considered on the basis of merit and what is best for Australia.It is time for the Howard government to approach policy development in this portfolio in the same way in which the opposition approaches it. Policy should be about what is best for Australia, not what is best for a political party or its election fortunes. That is why I have also raised another proposal today with respect to the operation of air services and tax. It is a wonderful system. We correctly give overseas aid. What is wrong with a policy position which effectively says that the department, in association with the minister's office, should now consider whether or not we can use tax as part of our overseas aid assistance program in the Asia-Pacific region to assist those countries that do not have proper systems in place? To me this issue is black and white. It is a fundamental policy issue that should be considered on its merits. More importantly, it is an issue that the minister should take hold of and have discussions with the Minister for Foreign Affairs to see whether or not we can make it a reality. It is part of our leadership role in the Asia-Pacific region. It goes hand in hand with the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition, in the debate about terrorism and the events in Bali this week, that we as a country should do more in terms of leadership in our own backyard.In conclusion, the amendments in this bill acknowledge correctly that this is a global industry that is very vulnerable to global trends and events beyond the reasonable control of management. The opposition, therefore, on the basis of good policy and doing what is right for this industry and for Australia—free of political considerations—again supports the bill in the spirit of recognising that it is right for Australia to remove unjustifiable barriers to competition in the global market. I commend the bill to the House.11:26:008027Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, 12 October 2002 will live in our memory forever as an infamous day because of the unheralded and unexpected sundering of probably more than 100 Australians from their family and friends—Australians who were going about their normal business, travelling on holiday. In many cases, these were people who regularly travel to Bali at this time of year in large groups to celebrate the end of football season and to enjoy themselves. These were people who had gone there year after year and were even introducing their young children to that activity. Almost all of them, we expect, would have had travel insurance. Even going back a number of years to when they first started travelling to Bali, almost all of them would have had travel insurance and would have read the fine print—you always flick through and have a bit of a look at it, as the travel agent suggests; you might have a look at it beforehand or when you are on the plane. In my experience, there is often a little bit in the fine print that says that there is an exclusion in regard to war or terrorism. Years ago, people did not take much notice of that exclusion provision because the impact directly on Australians from that kind of activity was not large on our radar. Terrorism had occurred in other countries, it had occurred on a regular basis and it was endemic in some societies. But as far as Australia was concerned—apart from a few relatively isolated incidents, such as the Hilton bombing that occurred on our continent and a few other incidents which Australians were caught up in—people would not normally expect those exclusion provisions to have any impact on them.The Insurance and Aviation Liability Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 before us today struggles to deal with the impact of September 11: the bombing of the twin towers, the Pentagon and what would have been the bombing of the US Congress, and the reaction of world insurance bodies to that. World insurers, whether operating at the retail or the wholesale level, basically said, `We're out of this. We don't want to put out insurance cover because planes were used to attack the twin towers and the Pentagon. We don't want to have to carry the costs of that.' So by default the costs were carried by governments: the Australian government, the United States government and other governments had to step into the breach. In the interim, we are now seeing some coverage being made available. It is probably because we have had the intervening time—it has been more than a year now since the original tax. The tendency is, after the initial shock—even a shock as dramatic as September 11 was—for business to get back to sorting itself out and thinking that maybe things will not be as bad in the future as they were in the past. The provisions in this bill work towards that more settled future but are necessary changes to take account of the fact that there is still a lot of trepidation. There is still a need for the government to provide undergirding when terrorism strikes at innocent people, particularly when they are travelling. It is very important to make these sorts of changes. The changes are relatively minor, but they go to a far more fundamental reality that we are facing. If you look at 12 October 2002 as an isolated incident, you will see that the trauma, the damage, the hurt, the shock and the reverberation through the Australian community is enormous. It was enormous on 12 October, more so on the 13th, more so on the 14th, and increasingly the trauma of that will embed itself further into the Australian psyche because the numbers of Australians known to have been killed in the most barbaric and senseless way will burn itself into the Australian psyche even more. We know that the original count was 14. Yesterday the count was up to 30. We know that there are still more than 140 bodies to be identified, and the savagery of the two blasts that occurred is such that the process of identification, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday in question time, is going to be enormously difficult and extremely long. Probably more than 100 Australian people going about their normal holiday business will have had their lives stripped away from them in an instant. Governments need to react to changing times and changing demands, and we have seen that happen over the year or so since September 11 in this government being willing to accept liability for a short period of time.Not long ago today, we had the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002 before the House. This bill addressed the problems of medical insurance in Australia and the fact that one set of doctors after another have basically said, `We are out of here,' just like the world insurers did. `We cannot continue to perform as obstetricians, brain surgeons or general surgeons with the problem that full liability might actually fall on us and we cannot get appropriate insurance.' The reason this bill has finally come into the House is that the insurance system in operation was inadequate. The doctors were not putting enough money into it. It was not properly organised. It was not properly funded. It was not properly overseen. We have seen the government utterly struggle to try to come to terms with how to appropriately react to this, how to put a set of bills together that might address this and how to set up another insurance system to deal with this. Without that insurance cover—whether it is provided by the industry or by the government—the Australian medical system could not operate. People could not be helped and they could not be saved from the dramatic damage that was done. All of those people injured in Bali could not be properly covered. The surgeons who after 20 years of preparation can deal with a crisis as great as this could not adequately be covered because the legislation has not been there.The government have been timorous and afraid in trying to deal with the situation. In exactly the same way, in the broad area of public liability insurance we are yet to see legislation come before this parliament to deal with the enormous problems in that area. The government's chief response has been to say, `Well, it's really a matter for the states. It is not something we can do much about.' Every major grouping within Australian society, every council, every shire, every government entity, is being affected, but the government cannot force themselves to try to get a federal solution to the problem. They have been forced to try to do it in the medical area, but they really do not know how to go about it. The easiest way to do it, of course, is to bucket the state governments—and it just happens that they are all Labor, so they bucket them a bit more. But there is no real solution to this. I know they have tried and they have worked at doing it—they made the attempt. But the underlying thing here is that there has to be a recognition by the members of the government that it is their job to do this sort of thing. It is the government's job to provide an undergirding when private industry says, `Hey, we're out of here—the damages are too great, the liabilities are too great, it is too difficult.' HIH has imploded because, at base, of corporate greed. All of the royal commission's evidence tells us that it was not good commercial practice that was running that entity. The response to that should have been much quicker and much readier. But the government has actually seen itself since it came into office as a silent bystander or—probably better than that—part of the commentariat. I do not think the Prime Minister, unless he is hoicked out at an election and we get in, will ever leave this joint as Prime Minister. I do not think he has ever had any intention to. The little argument about what he would do after 64 and all the rest of it is just a passing phase and something to trick things up. The most insightful thing he ever said—and this was years ago, I think before he got up as Leader of the Opposition—was that what he would really like to do is be a journalist. I thought then, `Well, that's very strange: he's been at this since about 1974, and you would think this was a responsible sort of thing to do, but really he'd just like to be a member of the commentariat!' And if you listen to what he has said ever since 1996 in terms of the approach he takes, he just likes to get back and comment on radio and TV and in the parliament about the passing parade of what is happening.The government are not very good at grappling with practical problems because they do not believe they really should be involved in them. The National Commission of Audit that they put in place said, paragraph after paragraph, sentence after sentence, that the government should not be providing direct service provision in Australia, that the government should be pulling out of any areas where there is any overlay with the state governments, and that the government should be pulling back from providing not only services but advice. They have been very good at closing down offices in my electorate. They closed down the Taxation Office—they did not want a local Taxation Office that actually provided services to people directly in an open area. They also closed down the Immigration office—they wanted people to travel to Parramatta or Rockdale or Sydney. The fact that my electorate of Blaxland and the city of Bankstown are in the geographic centre of Sydney and my electorate is one of the electorates most densely populated with people of ethnic background or born overseas is neither here nor there. Those people can wander from one end of Sydney to the other to try to get some help.This government just want to pare back all their responsibilities. They cannot see that they should be actively involved in taking measures. They were finally forced to do in the aviation liability legislation we are debating and with medical indemnity, but they have still not done it with public liability insurance. At the end of his speech the shadow minister quite rightly said that in all of these transport matters where the opposition has been involved his office door has been open not only to the government but to the people who are operators of businesses in the aviation area and to industry at large. The decisions taken by the opposition with regard to the problems facing the community, industry and government had been made on a non-partisan, non-political basis. The support for this bill is on the same basis. But there is a bit of a difference here. I have watched the shadow minister for transport make decisions, take positions, argue in terms of what the opposition should do and deal with people as they have come together with problems. Most of it is done quietly but effectively in direct consultation with the minister to sort out the problems that the government really do not have a handle on. The attempt is there to solve the problems and also to think ahead strategically not only about where the Commonwealth's responsibilities are now but about where they might develop in the future. This bill lacked a sufficiently weighty context for Australia after September 11, except that the impact on us was that there were Australians in the twin towers—I do not think there were any in the Pentagon. There were Australians who were injured. Movement by aircraft became more difficult. There were problems with any Australians travelling around the world. Because terrorism and war provisions were not there, the government had to come in and do something. But 12 October 2002 tells this government, and any Australian government and political party, that terrorism is not only on our doorstep; it has reached the heart of the problem we will have to deal with for the rest of this century. That is because 12 October is not just an isolated event; it is the most significant, searing event we have faced but it will not be the last. The problems that we face in trying to make adjustments in the liability area in insurance will not stop here, because life will not return to normal just because this current destruction has ceased.All you have to do is think about the fact that there are not two polar situations we have to deal with; there are not just two poles of context that change the way that we look at a bill of this type. The West's war against terrorism did not start on 11 September 2001. Western secular democracies, including the secular democracy that exists in Indonesia, have been under attack for more than a decade. We know now—we did not know at the time—that in 1994 the attack on the World Trade Centre, the attempt to bomb that from the car park underneath, was undertaken by the al-Qaeda group. We know now that the attack on the USS Cole was undertaken by the al-Qaeda group. We know that there was an unsuccessful attempt some months ago to bomb the Australian High Commission in Singapore. We know that recently there has been an attack in the Philippines in conjunction with the attack in Bali. We know that just a bit after the two bombs were set off outside Paddy's Bar and the Sari nightclub there was a bomb set off outside the US consulate facility in Denpasar. We know that other acts had been prepared by terrorist groups and would have been perpetrated had they not been snuffed out. These were not only in Germany; they include the ones I have alluded to and others in Singapore.We also know that terrorist groups operating within Indonesia, and those that have obviously been operating in the Bali area, have not been brought to heel and rounded up in the way they have been in Singapore. We know that there is some fundamental failing either in intelligence gathering or in the will to pursue the round-up of these groups, not just to bring to justice those people who need to be brought to justice but to cauterise the problem of the terrorising of Indonesian Western secular democracy by the attacks of a group of fundamentalists who want to drive Indonesia and Asia back to a feudal, theocratic state. So there has been not just one incident—on 11 September 2001, or the key pole for us of 12 October 2002—but a pattern of attacks on American, Western and Australian secular democracy. The people who are doing this do not like the fact that we actually split church and state after hundreds of years of pillage, terror and destruction in the name of God, from whatever approach people took—the Catholic, the Protestant—during the Reformation period. That finally ceased. We sorted it out. We actually have a division between those two. The great problem for us is that world wide there are a lot of people who do not like that division. They do not like the modern nature of the society that we live in. They do not like the fact that this bill seeks to make adjustments for the fact that they have ripped the entire fabric of our society to pieces.One of the key things this government needs to do is to start planning more for the future in terms of protecting Australian citizens, to start to take up the demand that is made by the attack on our citizens in Bali on 12 October, to protect our critical infrastructure, to protect our people and to take an active role, belated as it is. We saw the Treasurer yesterday discover the words `engagement with Asia'. We saw him discover the idea, put by the former member for Blaxland so cogently and so well, that Australia cannot seek to escape its place in Asia. It cannot run away from it. It cannot, as this government has done since 1996, attempt to be a mere lap-dog of the United States, attempt to be the deputy sheriff of the United States in the Australian region or attempt to be the sidekick of a US government that is becoming increasingly rogue. The US will not take into its confidence the other countries that are Western secular democracies, that are part of the United Nations, that have had to make adjustments like this, that have had to take up insurance liabilities. The US wants to do it all on its own. Australia has to take its stand independently but also as part of the world community, not only to make these adjustments but to strengthen its democracy against the attacks made upon it.11:46:008031Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—This has been a very wide-ranging debate on the Insurance and Aviation Liability Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. We have debated the war against Iraq. We have debated the tragedy in Bali. We have even debated the Prime Minister's retirement plans. These are all crucial matters. I want to come to the question of aviation insurance and in particular the impact on the aviation insurance industry of the collapse of HIH, so let me provide the committee with some of the background.The HIH bid for FAI began on 23 September with an on market purchase of 50 per cent of Adler's holding in the company. The following day Rodney Adler agreed to FAI paying Malcolm Turnbull $1.5 million in fees. At every stage they looked after each other. On 10 October Turnbull recommended to FAI acceptance of a full takeover bid by HIH. Incredibly, for the purpose of this exercise, he valued FAI at between $157 million and $378 million and then allowed HIH to pay $300 million for the company, so, in effect, Turnbull ripped them off by $280 million. To cover his tracks he convinced the FAI board that there was no need to conduct another valuation of the company in response to the HIH bid. On 28 September, the board resolved to appoint an independent valuer for the purpose of the part B statement. Turnbull then talked them out of it. As the counsel to the Royal Commission, Norman O'Bryan, said:Mr Turnbull had advised that Goldman Sachs had undertaken have undertaken an extensive review of the group's operations and, on that basis, would be in a position to provide a letter of advice to the board of the recommendation to be made to the shareholders. In the end this advice only examined one option, the recommendation to sell into the bid. In the words of Mr O'Bryan:There was no reference to whether they would be better off selling immediately on-market, as Mr Adler had done a couple of days earlier, and grabbing as much cash as they could while the share price on-market was being underwritten by this bid.Turnbull ensured that Adler had exclusive access to these arrangements. This matter requires further investigation and that is why the government has appointed a royal commission. The government is keen to ensure that the collapse of HIH does not further impact on the insurance industry in Australia, particularly the aviation insurance industry, which is under stress, particularly now given the tragedy in Bali and the need for further terrorism insurance—JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In his opening statements the member for Werriwa referred to the wide-ranging debate that we have had from the previous members. I suggest that the member for Werriwa address this particular legislation. I do not think anyone objects to a wide-ranging debate but we have specific legislation before us and, while the general comments made by the previous two speakers were indirectly related to the aviation industry, I am having difficulty seeing where the member for Werriwa's comments are in any way related to this particular piece of legislation.10000Gambaro, Teresa (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Gambaro)—The member for Werriwa is very energetic today on this particular subject. I have just come from the main chamber, where he has raised similar areas of interest. In the main chamber a short while ago, the areas of sub judice and royal commissions were highlighted. I ask the member for Werriwa to come back to the topic of debate in this chamber—that is, the Insurance and Aviation Liability Legislation Amendment Bill 2002.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was a curious point of order, because I was talking about terrorism insurance just as the member for McEwen took the point of order. While not wanting to reflect on the chair, it is a curious ruling. I provided a bit of background and then moved on to the subject of terrorism insurance and the specific matter in this legislation which has been the subject of wide-ranging debate. If there is a connection between the Prime Minister's retirement plans and the war in Iraq and this particular legislation, I would be happy to hear it. But let us be consistent.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I ask the member for Werriwa to address the bill before the chamber.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I was addressing the question of terrorism insurance, which has been made much more difficult in Australia by the collapse of HIH, which followed the sale of FAI. The government has appointed a royal commission. That was referred to earlier in this debate by the member for Blaxland. I think it is valid to make the point that, under the Corporations Law, a takeover offer must be made to all shareholders and the offer must be the same for all shareholders. Clearly, this did not occur under the Turnbull-Adler arrangement. The FAI purchase came with liabilities unknown to HIH, including $100 million in bad reinsurance contracts. It was the Trojan Horse that ultimately destroyed HIH and sent the Australian insurance industry into crisis.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to my feet on the same point of order that I raised previously, which was to have the member for Werriwa relate his comments directly to this legislation. As I rose to my feet, the member for Werriwa was giving specific details about FAI. I would remind the member for Werriwa again about the current legislation we are meant to be debating. 00AN3O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr Brendan O'Connor—On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the second occasion on which the member for McEwen has made this comment and raised the point of order with you. I have listened to four speakers debate this bill and the member for Werriwa has stuck closer to this bill than all preceding speakers. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to rule that he was actually irrelevant or out of order, I would have to say that there is some inconsistency in your chairmanship.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will take your comments on board, but I do ask the member for Werriwa—and I am well aware of his comments in the main chamber a short time ago—to bring his comments to the relevance of the legislation that we debating here and to not enter into irrelevant discussions about royal commissions.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I am not doing that. What I have mentioned is that the—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Your comments should be related to the bill at hand.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—FAI was the Trojan Horse that ultimately destroyed HIH and sent the Australian insurance industry into crisis. It is that crisis to which the government is responding with this legislation. As I mentioned earlier, responsibility for the collapse extends beyond Adler and Ray Williams. Turnbull is also culpable, damned by his silence. At every stage, he and Adler covered up the truth. If Turnbull had been up-front and honest with the FAI board and said what he knew to be true—that is, `I was involved in an attempt to privatise the company and, in any case, you are only worth $20 million'—he would never have been appointed. Moreover, the board would have included this information in its part B statement and disclosed it to the Stock Exchange. The sale to HIH would never have taken place. Australia's largest corporate collapse would have been avoided. If we could have avoided the collapse of HIH then surely it would have provided stronger underpinnings for the insurance industry in Australia—stronger underpinnings for this terrible problem of providing terrorism insurance and stronger underpinnings on the questions of public liability insurance and medical indemnity that were mentioned earlier. We need to learn the lessons. I think it is very important for us as a parliament to learn these lessons and to ensure that as we pass this legislation through the parliament we are equipped with a better understanding of the insurance industry and the need to avoid collapses like that of HIH. Not only is Turnbull damned by his silence: documents were presented at the royal commission showing how he actively deceived the FAI board. On 28 September, for instance, he wrote to Mr Landerer about how he was on a `learning curve in respect of FAI'—that is, pretending that he had no prior knowledge of the company's finances. What was the bottom line? Turnbull failed in his duty of care out of greed—it is as simple as that. He gave a higher priority to pocketing $1.5 million than to the principles of truth and public decency.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand under the new workings of the Main Committee that I am entitled to ask the member for Werriwa a question.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Will the honourable member allow a question?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Yes. JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—My question to the member for Werriwa is: how does the report that he referred in relation to Mr Turnbull and the company have a direct relationship to the legislation that we are debating here today? I concede to the member for Werriwa his general points about having a strong insurance industry and providing that strong underbelly—I think that is how he referred to it—to underpin the insurance industry, but could he answer my question. How do those specific details in relation to Mr Turnbull relate to this legislation?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I thank the honourable member for McEwen for her question. As a shadow minister I have been waiting six years for someone to ask me a question than I can answer. This is what we live for. This is truly a moment to cherish—it is the thing we live for. Someone tell me it is not a dream. Tell me it is finally happening—I can stand up and answer a question.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—These are the new forms of the House.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Maybe we can have a day on that side down in the main chamber and answer questions. No, we will not take the forms that far. The honourable member for McEwen would appreciate that the government is moving two pieces of legislation through the parliament today: the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002 and the Insurance and Aviation Liability Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. The latter bill is the legislation now before the Main Committee. This is happening basically for two reasons: the terrible terrorist attacks that we have had around the world, first on 11 September and now, tragically, on 12 October; and, beyond that, the general insecurity and instability of the insurance industry in Australia that was caused by the collapse of HIH.What was the cause of the HIH collapse? The government is having a royal commission; it is an inquiry into the executive. I would have thought that, given that this legislation is before the parliament only because of the terrorist attacks and the collapse of HIH, it is valid in the debate to reflect on the reasons that HIH collapsed. One of the strongest reasons was the sale of FAI. That is the linkage. If we are to further protect the insurance industry in the future, if we are to provide decent medical and terrorist insurance arrangements in this country, then we must learn the lessons of the HIH experience, and that is what I am bringing before the parliament. Maybe the member for McEwen is also a bit worried that the Liberal Party has made Malcolm Turnbull its federal Liberal Party treasurer. He was responsible for the sale of FAI and, ultimately, the collapse of HIH. He is a bagman who can walk both sides of the street, look after his party mates and turn $20 million into $300 million.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I want to bring to the attention of the member for Werriwa a ruling made by Speaker Cameron in 1954 regarding inquiries and, in particular, findings. I want to highlight this for the member for Werriwa:Where the proceedings are concerned with issues of fact or findings relating to the propriety of the actions of specific persons the House should be restrained in its references.Again I ask the member for Werriwa to turn his comments away from any issues that are currently the subject of a royal commission or inquiry. I refer him to that particular ruling that was made by Speaker Cameron in 1954 and ask him to adhere to that ruling.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: if you turn to page 495 of that same book, the Harris edition of House of Representatives Practice, you will find a ruling by Speaker Snedden which very clearly stated that royal commissions are an inquiry of the executive; they are not an inquiry of the judiciary. It is not a court case; it is an inquiry of the executive that can be reflected on in the media, as it is, and can be reflected on in the parliament. The only caveat, the only restriction on members, is to ensure that they are not trying to influence the findings of the royal commission. Madam Deputy Speaker, further to my point of order, you will appreciate that every second day in question time the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations raises issues that flow from the building industry royal commission, which this government has also established. There is never any attempt by the Speaker to sit the minister down and say, `You can't talk about the building industry because there's a royal commission currently under way.' Under the ruling of Speaker Snedden, the minister is allowed to reflect on material currently before the building industry royal commission as long as he does not try and influence the findings of that commission. So I put it to you in my point of order that it is perfectly valid to talk about the royal commission—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the member for Werriwa. As you quoted so avidly from House of Representatives Practice, I would also like to quote Speaker Martin, who stated:(A) Matters before Royal Commissions or other similar bodies which are concerned with the conduct of particular persons should not be referred to in proceedings if, in the opinion of the Chair, there is a likelihood of prejudice being caused as a result of the references in the House.Again, I ask the member for Werriwa to return to the bill that we are discussing here.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I am happy to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a bill that tries to improve terrorism insurance arrangements in Australia. It responds to two very unfortunate events: firstly, the tragic terrorist attacks that have occurred in different parts of the world—most recently in Bali—and, secondly, the collapse of HIH. I would argue that Malcolm Turnbull's role in the collapse of HIH tells us as much about the Liberal Party as it does about him. They preach responsibility for society's poor, but they never practice it themselves—JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—I rise on a point of order. On several occasions now, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have requested that the member for Werriwa return to this legislation. I ask you to remind him of his obligations.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The shadow minister will return to the bill and again will refer to relevant aspects of the bill in the discussion in this chamber. Again, I know that the member for Werriwa quoted Speaker Snedden, but I have also have quoted from House of Representatives Practice and I ask him to respect the ruling of the chair.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Madam Deputy Speaker, not only do I respect the ruling of the chair but I am pleased to report to the Main Committee that I have concluded my remarks.12:03:008035Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence10—Firstly, I thank the previous speakers—the member for Batman, the member for Blaxland and the member for Werriwa—for their very wide-ranging contribution to this debate. In particular, I would like to acknowledge some of the remarks made by the member for Batman and I thank him for his contribution and his remarks. I refer in particular to the member for Batman's appreciation of the work done by the management and staff of Qantas and of the superb manner in which they have responded to the tragic events that happened in Bali and which have affected so many of our Australian families. In addition to acknowledging the member for Batman's comments concerning the superb effort by Qantas in response to the tragedy in Bali, I would also like to draw the attention of the Main Committee to the work done by our Australian defence forces. In most of the televised reports that I have seen there has been a person wearing a military uniform helping to carry a stretcher. Defence personnel have been assigned to do many of the gruesome tasks that are unfortunately necessary to expedite the recovery and the identification of the many people who were killed in that terrible tragedy.I thank those members for their comments. I also thank the member for Batman for his reference to the very level-headed leadership shown by the government in responding to the tragedy. I thank all of the speakers from the opposition for their cooperation with the government, and for their commitment to this legislation. I can readily understand the comments that have been made in the Main Committee today about the tragedy of Bali, because this legislation is dealing with the aftermath of terrorist attacks. This bill makes minor amendments to three acts. It amends the Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 to ensure passive owners, lessors and financiers are exempted from liability for damage by aircraft to third parties on the ground. It amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to allow for the exemption by regulation of third party aviation war risk insurance from the non-variation of section 53 and non-cancellation of section 63 provisions of the act. It makes a minor technical amendment to the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 to ensure that Australia imposes certain liabilities only on Australian airlines and not on international charter operators.These amendments have arisen due to concerns identified by the aviation sector in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks. The government has widely consulted with the aviation, financial and insurance industries about these amendments to ensure the bill's technical application is consistent with industry practice. There is strong support from each of those sectors for the amendments. The amendments to the first two acts will resolve several issues of concern to Australia's aviation industry. They will help provide a sustainable financial basis for the industry as it faces the challenges of the new terrorism in the post-September 11 2001 operating environment. Once again, I thank the members of the opposition for their support of this legislation.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. Bills8036R16238036Debate resumed from 29 August, on motion by Mr Andrews:That this bill be now read a second time.12:08:008036Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition supports the Health Care (Appropriation) Amendment Bill 2002. The bill amends the Health Care Appropriation Act 1998. These amendments allow the Commonwealth to discharge its financial responsibilities under the 1998-2003 Australian health care agreements. Under the Australian health care agreements, the Commonwealth provides financial assistance to the states and territories for the provision of public hospital services. The amendments will increase the maximum amount the minister may grant by way of financial assistance to a state, a hospital or other person under section 4 from $29.655 billion to $31.8 billion and will require the Minister for Health and Ageing to present to each house of the parliament, as soon as practicable after 30 June 2003, a statement of the total amount of financial assistance paid under section 4. The act provides the legislative basis for grants of financial assistance under the Australian health care agreements, including health care grant and national health development fund payments to the states and territories, and Commonwealth owned purpose outlays for mental health, palliative care and case mix development. The bill will provide legislative authority for the Commonwealth to meet its responsibility under the Australian health care agreements to provide financial assistance to the states and territories for the provision of public hospital services, and for the Commonwealth's own purpose, until 30 June 2003, when the Australian health care agreements expire. If the bill is not passed, the Commonwealth will lack the legislative authority to continue to make payments to the states under the Australian health care agreements, and on that basis the opposition clearly supports it.The bill does provide an opportunity to make some brief comments about the upcoming renewal of the Australian health care agreements. As is made clear by the bill and the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the current Australian health care agreements expire on 30 June 2003. The Commonwealth and the states and territories are currently negotiating renewed agreements. Here I have, frankly, a sobering message to deliver. In my view, there has been a substantial amount of misplaced optimism about the Commonwealth's approach to the agreements, as a result of the health minister's conference communique in April this year, which spoke in terms of best care and health outcomes and national objectives of improved care. Some said that for the first time the Commonwealth and the states were genuinely talking about health outcomes and that disputes about health financing would be a thing of the past. As very recent history shows, that will not be the case.You have only to go back to the 1995 and 1996 Council of Australian Governments meetings to see similar Commonwealth-state communiques. The 1996 communique, signed by the Howard government, spoke in terms of joint objectives, joint setting of priorities and partnership funding. The only problem is that nothing came of it. On the contrary, the Howard government slashed funding to the states in 1996. Public hospitals bore the brunt of those cuts, and they have never fully recovered. The adverse consequences of declining GP bulk-billing for public hospital emergency departments—so clearly pointed out by state health ministers in a letter to Health Minister Patterson in August—together with the government's approach to aged care accommodation, see our public hospitals in the troubled state that they are in today.It is only a matter of time before someone in authority in the Howard government—and that is certainly not the health minister—comes along and simply says, `This is what the state and territories got last time and this is what they will get this time, plus or minus a small percentage.' Regrettably, consistent with the government's approach to health financing generally, that is likely to be a budget bottom line judgment, not a judgment which takes any heed of health outcomes. To the contrary, I see the agreements as an opportunity to build on Labor's Medicare alliance proposal. It is an opportunity to determine not who should pay but what we are paying for. The agreement should be a building block to stop perverse cost shifting incentives and to deliver more effective health care for all Australians. That would be a better way to build the future of health care under these agreements. In conclusion, I might take the opportunity, given that this is a bill which relates so centrally to the financing of our public hospitals, to pay compliment to all those health workers in our state and territory public hospitals who have performed so valiantly and so well in the aftermath of the Bali terrorist attacks. They are doing their best to ensure high quality health care for Australians and overseas nationals so tragically injured in those terrorist attacks.12:13:008038Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I am pleased to speak on the Health Care (Appropriation) Amendment Bill 2002 in relation to the Australian health care agreements and some minor changes. The changes are certainly very positive and allow the government to further improve funding to Australia's public hospitals. In Queensland, the Commonwealth government provides about half of the current funding for public hospitals. But there is very great concern, which I would like to alert the House to, in relation to Townsville hospital. Townsville hospital was opened in October of last year. It is a brand new level 6 hospital, and it is an absolute disgrace. The hospital was cost capped, with part of the money coming from the federal government through the Australian health care agreement. That was a very great shame, because part of the hospital has not been built for cyclone conditions.I think all of you know about the cyclonic influences in the northern part of Australia. Half of the hospital is built as a sort of crumple zone, so that if we do get a very severe cyclone in Townsville then we might find that half of our general hospital does not exist. That is not acceptable. The operating theatres are far too small; accident and emergency is far too small. We are finding that up to 20 patients a day are being kept in accident and emergency because they cannot find anywhere to put them in the wards. This is of very great concern to the people of Townsville and Thuringowa, and it should be to the Australian public, as well as to both the state and the federal government. I very strongly support the Health Care (Appropriation) Amendment Bill, which assists the federal government in providing more funding for the public hospital system.12:15:008038O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Health Care (Appropriation) Amendment Bill 2002 is designed to make two changes to the Health Care (Appropriation) Act 1998. It will allow the Minister for Health and Ageing to increase the maximum limit of funding provided to states and territories under the Australian health care agreements and will require the minister to table in parliament a statement of the total amounts granted under the amended maximum payment level. The current agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories is for the period 1998-2003, for an amount not exceeding $29.633 billion. With this amendment, that maximum amount is increased to $31.8 billion over that period. The opposition has already indicated it will be supporting this bill.An important feature of the agreement is the capacity of the Commonwealth to adjust its funding commitment where private health insurance membership increases or decreases beyond certain thresholds. A central but flawed tenet of the government's position is that increases in private health insurance membership automatically over time lead to a reduced demand on public hospitals. This is a position that rests more in ideology or philosophical positioning than in fact. The fact is that, although people have been virtually dragooned into private health insurance by the government through its 30 per cent private health insurance rebate and other incentives, this has not led to a dramatic decline in public hospital waiting lists. There are reasons for this. Public hospitals have the resources and expertise to undertake complex medical procedures, and that is where people go for their treatment. Whether or not a person has private health insurance is quite irrelevant to the issue of seeking the best treatment for a complex medical condition; hence, people will gravitate to the waiting lists of public hospitals when such procedures are required. A second important factor in this analysis is the nature of the government's private health insurance initiatives themselves. They are deliberately designed and focused to attract young people to the private funds. As young people are on average more healthy than others, they are not big users of the public health system anyway. So a significant increase in membership from certain age cohorts—particularly the young—does not by itself translate into a reduced demand for public health services.This bill provides me with an opportunity to make some comment on Australia's health care system—an issue of critical importance to my electors in Corio. It is timely to make these comments, as our most recent experience in the wake of the deadly terrorist bombings in Bali has brought home to us all how fortunate we are to have a health care system of such quality and sophistication, with the capability to handle even the most dire of emergencies. I pay tribute today to those Australian health care professionals who have worked beyond the call of duty in Bali and in Australia to alleviate the pain and suffering of their fellow Australians. It is important to understand and acknowledge that this selfless contribution is being made daily, right across Australia, by these professionals in the health care system.In my electorate of Corio, which encompasses the great regional and provincial city of Geelong, we are fortunate to boast one of regional Australia's best public hospitals, operated by Barwon Health and servicing the Barwon region from Geelong and the surf coast well into the Western District. That hard-won reputation is the result of the efforts of many people: the doctors and nurses who form the professional core of health providers in the facility; the Geelong Hospital Board, chaired by Lisa Neville; the work force, well represented by their unions; the ancillary volunteers, whose support is so vital to the operations of the hospital; and, of course, the Geelong community, which strongly supports this key institution in our local region through fundraising activities and various appeals.Our public hospital is part of a public health system which ranks as one of the best in the world, despite the Prime Minister's incessant attacks upon it. Australia's Medicare is a great Labor initiative of which we are very proud and which provides universal health cover to all, regardless of race, religion, occupation or social status. It is strongly supported by the Australian people, yet we have a Liberal Prime Minister at the moment who is dedicated to its destruction. John Howard has made the dismantling of Medicare one of the central goals of his political career, one to be achieved by stealth and deceit. Who could ever forget his now infamous statement that he would stab Medicare in the stomach if the Liberals ever regained office? They did regain office but they have not been able to dismantle it because the Australian people will not let them—and, of course, this Labor opposition will not let them either. The fact of the matter is that Australia's health care system is in crisis, and the mess has been created by this Liberal Prime Minister. The result of that has been increased health care costs for Geelong and for Australian families. Firstly, we have seen a dramatic decline in the provision of bulk-billing services, and that simply translates into increased costs for working families. The rate of bulk-billing has declined from over 80 per cent when the Howard government came to power to now only 73.9 per cent. Today the latest Medicare statistics show that the average copayment for someone seeing a GP has increased from $8.32 in 1996 to $11.98 today—an increase of 44 per cent. At the end of the day the financial impact of these trends is borne by working families. The medical indemnity insurance crisis is also impacting on the rate of bulk-billing and on the costs to families. We have had the example of an indemnity levy being imposed by some rural and regional doctors. The example that has been brought to the attention of the parliament is the doctor in Parkes in the west of New South Wales who, it has been reported, has billed each of his patients with a levy, ranging from $2 to $6, each time they visit. That levy is assessed for each patient, based on considerations such as the length of the consultation, the financial status of the patient and the legal risks associated with the particular treatment. Here is a very concrete case where another failure of government policy is hitting the pockets of ordinary Australians. We now have the automatic increases in the costs of private health insurance, courtesy of this Prime Minister.In 1996, John Howard said this about future premium increases:What I can give is an absolute guarantee that any change—that is, in private health insurance premiums—in future will be the result of a decision taken at the political level in a way and in circumstances where we are satisfied that the rise is completely justified.It is another broken promise on private health insurance by the Prime Minister. Australian taxpayers now contribute $2.3 billion each year to subsidise private health insurance. These particular increases, or the structures that are being put in place to allow these increases without scrutiny, will simply mean increased costs to Australian families who have private health insurance. Wherever you go in the health system today, this Liberal government has its hand in the pockets of Australian families, be it from the impact of the decline in bulk-billing, be it from the impact of medical indemnity insurance—or the lack of it—on medical practice, or be it in the area of rising health insurance premiums in the private sector. Australian families are bearing a terrible burden at the moment because of the incompetence of this government in health care.12:26:008040Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise to speak on the Health Care (Appropriation) Amendment Bill 2002. This bill proposes to make two changes to the Health Care (Appropriation) Act 1998. The first change will increase the maximum amount of financial assistance that the Minister for Health and Ageing may grant to the states and territories under the Australian health care agreements. The second change requires the Minister for Health and Ageing to table a statement on the amount of financial assistance granted under the new maximum payment level.Australian health agreements are between the federal government and the governments of the states and territories. They are the means by which the federal government provides health funding to the states. As the Health Care (Appropriation) Act now stands, the ceiling on the amount that the federal government can provide to the states for health spending is kept at just over $29,655 million. As the Minister for Ageing, the Hon. Kevin Andrews, indicated in his second reading speech, this level of funding is expected to be reached by early 2003. Despite the member for Corio's comments earlier, this is the result of the federal government's decision not to reduce health funding to public hospitals despite the huge increase in the number of people with private health insurance. This bill seeks to increase the cap rather than to reduce the expenditure on health and is yet another example of the priorities of this government when it comes to providing more dollars for our public hospitals. As a result of this government's far-sighted policies in encouraging people to take on private health insurance, there has been a large increase in the number of private hospital admissions. If it were not for the government's incentives, these patients would have added to the waiting lists at public hospitals, putting even greater pressure on doctors and nurses. The government can justifiably claim to have succeeded in its aim of reducing the pressure on our public hospitals by its private health insurance incentives. Labor cannot get over its blinkered, ideological view: it opposes private health insurance and wants everybody to be forced onto the public system. Labor does not like to provide people with a choice and would prefer to have them waiting in lines for surgery than give them the option of having surgery in a private hospital.The bill will raise the cap on the amount that the federal government can provide to the states and territories for their public hospitals to $31,800 million. The bill will also expand the reporting responsibilities of the Minister for Health and Ageing, requiring her to present to each house of parliament as soon as possible after 30 June 2003 a statement of the total amount of financial assistance paid under section 4 of the act, thus leading to greater transparency and accountability. I commend the minister for introducing this bill and for paving the way for further expenditure on our public hospitals. This will be appreciated and supported by the community of Makin.The people of South Australia have been disappointed with the recent decisions of the newly installed Labor government of Mike Rann. Within a few short weeks of his Minister for Health, Lea Stevens, being sworn into office, they were already closing down hospital beds and forcing people to wait longer for surgery. At the same time Minister Stevens claimed to be shocked to discover a blow-out in the purchase price of an important piece of medical machinery at one hospital and heralded the fact that heads would roll, but she was later forced to admit, under pressure from the state Liberal opposition, that she had been advised of the purchase.We can see the very clear difference between Labor rhetoric and Labor action. Before the election they were full of promises about increasing funding for the South Australian health system. Following the election they suffered a case of collective amnesia and, led by a minister who frankly does not know her saline drip from her catheter, they are closing down hospital beds and making a shambles of the administration.83SBurke, Anna, MP0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—In contrast we have the federal Liberal government providing real leadership to reduce the pressure on public hospitals through incentives for people to use the private health option, refusing to reduce government spending on health even when more people are choosing private hospitals and, finally, through this bill, raising the cap on the amount of funding that can be provided to our public hospital system by more than $2,000 million. I support this bill because it will deliver more funds to public hospitals, which is what the Australian people are demanding of their governments. The Australian people really do want their taxes spent on their hospitals, because they recognise there is a real need to ensure the highest quality of health care for all. The lesson then is clear: while Labor talks, Liberal delivers. Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.Adjournment8042Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler) (12.33 p.m.)—I move:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.804212:33:008042Jackson, Sharryn, MPMs JACKSON00AN2HasluckALP00—It has been widely acknowledged in this House that there is a problem with the number of GP services in outer metropolitan and regional areas, especially in terms of access to GPs who bulk-bill. Throughout my electorate of Hasluck this issue is an ongoing problem. I am often contacted by constituents who are frustrated by the fact that they cannot have their sick children seen to by a GP without having a three-day wait for an appointment. This leads to greater pressure on our public health system when, as a last resort, patients present themselves to the emergency department of a public hospital so that they can see a doctor.Families under financial pressure are doubly disadvantaged because it is difficult to find a GP who not only has the time to see them but also bulk-bills. Under this government the rate of bulk-billing by GPs continues to fall at an alarming rate whilst at the same time the cost of seeing a doctor is rising steadily. Recently released figures from the Health Insurance Commission for the June quarter show that only 73.9 per cent of GP services now bulk-bill. In my electorate of Hasluck the number of doctors who bulk-bill has fallen by 4.3 per cent since March 2000.The loss of bulk-billing hurts those who are least able to pay, including pensioners and struggling families. The shortage of GP services is no more acute than in the area of Maddington and surrounding suburbs. Maddington residents have expressed their frustration at being unable to secure a timely appointment with doctors who bulk-bill. This concern is highlighted by the situation at the Burslem Medical Centre at Maddington. As it is one of the few practices in the area that offers bulk-billing, many local families are keen to utilise its services. Unfortunately, the medical centre is unable to keep up with the demand from patients, as it currently has only one practising GP. This is despite having capacity in the practice for three GPs to operate.For over 12 months, the medical centre has advertised to fill a vacancy in the practice. Only one GP has applied who is willing to work in this outer metropolitan area. This doctor, who lives in an adjoining suburb, has been willing to take the position for the past year and the practice is keen to have her. Unfortunately, both the doctor concerned—because she is overseas trained—and the Burslem Medical Centre have been unable to secure a provider number from the government to allow this doctor to practise at this surgery. According to the government, the Maddington area does not meet their definition of an area of unmet need. After 12 months of extensive advertising of the position, the practice has exhausted all options available to them in their attempts to secure additional GPs. Maddington and the surrounding area is clearly in need of additional GP services, particularly from those GPs who bulk-bill. However, due to the complex nature of the provider number process and the model used to determine GP work force needs, families in this area will continue to have to cope with the GP shortage. I wrote to the minister about this matter in August this year, seeking her urgent assistance in resolving the provider number issue. Her response was detailed but disappointing, to say the least. She does not accept that there is a GP shortage in Maddington. She does concede that `some outer metropolitan areas have experienced difficulties in obtaining the services of general practitioners'. She further concedes that some parts of my electorate, including Maddington, are likely to be eligible for the government's `More doctors for outer metropolitan areas' measure—a budget initiative which the government says will come into effect next year. There is no detail of exactly when next year. This measure, according to them, should see an additional 150 GPs over the next four years providing some services in the outer metropolitan areas of our six state capital cities. Rather than say `additional GPs', I should say that the measure appears directed towards relocating existing GPs.Quite frankly, it is difficult for me to see how Maddington, in outer metropolitan Perth, will be assisted by this measure or indeed when, if ever, they will be assisted by these measures. Models used by the government and the department tend to disguise the real needs in outer metropolitan areas. I have had similar experiences in respect of all health services in my electorate, particularly in the area of residential aged care places. Minister, I ask you to leave the models alone and to look at the real life situation.804312:38:008043Ley, Sussan, MPMs LEY00AMNFarrerLP10—On the fifth day since the tragic Bali bombings, I recognise that many of the things we discuss in the House today seem very trite by comparison. My condolences go to all the families and to all those waiting for news.I do not usually read the Age, but one of my constituents has drawn my attention to an article by Ross Gittins that appeared yesterday headed, `Wake up, cityslickers: a drought is just bad farm management'. In the article, Mr Gittins talks about farmers `continuing to stuff up the Wide Brown Land' and wanting to `capitalise the profits, but socialise the losses'. He states that farming is the only `for-profit industry in the country that passes round the hat whenever profits slip'. The constituents in my electorate of Farrer, and indeed all over rural Australia, are monumentally insulted by this arrant nonsense. But we are not surprised.For too long we have seen the broadsheet press in this country misunderstand and insult the farming community. We have seen headlines that refer to our dying Murray River and the uncontrolled extractions of irrigators, subheadings blaming farmers for dry land salinity, articles painting farmers as hungry for a handout and, perhaps the most offensive and insidious of all, articles that paint the picture of farmers doing their best with little education and less sophistication, trapped by their past and unable to get it together. They are painted as nice wholesome folk, unsophisticated, yes, but battling on in a sort of worn-out way, with weather-beaten hat pulled down over furrowed brow—a figure that elicits sympathy and reminds us of a romantic past, but that is about all.This is the farming image that the mainstream media presents to the rest of Australia, and it is not correct. Mr Gittins might agree that there is a media stereotype not shared by him, but he is equally inaccurate in his remarks. He mentions that farmers have just had their most profitable year and are complaining because profits are dropping. He states that, from a recent average of $5.1 billion, farm income has almost doubled to $9.8 billion and now that income has slumped to $3.7 billion. `And now out comes the begging bowl,' he says. I do not take issue with his average figures but, of course, they fail to recognise that averages really mean nothing if they reflect opposite ends of the spectrum. Broadly, I understand that approximately 20 per cent of the farmers in Australia produce 80 per cent of farm incomes. The ones who contact me to express varying levels of concern and desperation are not facing lower incomes; they are facing financial ruin. I suppose Ross Gittins would say: `Well, shape up or ship out. Leave it to the big guys, who have proved that they are profitable.' But those who are seriously affected by this drought are not necessarily bad farmers. Farming practices have nothing to do with it; there are all sorts of factors, including climate, time in the industry and the type of farming operation. There are some really good operators who are very badly affected. The main determining factor is how much money you owe. Farming is a highly capital intensive business. When you are young you tend to borrow, and when borrowings are high so are the risks. I know a young wheat farmer in his 20s in the west of my electorate who is looking for an overdraft of about $¼ million so that he can put in a wheat crop next year. This year's has failed totally; emus and cockatoos have just finished off the last of it. This farmer is a good operator. He knows what he is doing—he has been born and bred to it—but, as a young man starting out, he has struck this savage drought. Perhaps he should just go and sit on a beach, like so many of his contemporaries. Perhaps he should give up his farm to a large corporation and take his wife and two small children out of the rural community where they live. This is the other thing that Mr Gittins misses completely: if we do not support our communities in the bush when they need it, what will we end up with out there? Kangaroos, emus, feral animals, noxious weeds and thousands of miles of roads to nowhere. The children from the small Yerong Creek Public School who were in the gallery today are nearly all farm kids who would grow up and not be able to make the contribution to rural Australia that I know they can. The cost to taxpayers of supporting communities in regional areas is a lot less than the cost of not supporting them.I know that, unlike some, Ross understands how wealth is created in a modern economy. Of course he knows that the standard of living we all enjoy as Australians is closely related to the value of our exports, a large part of which are agricultural. Our farmers are unsubsidised, extremely efficient leaders in agricultural production. We do what we do better than anyone else in the world, and few would argue with that. The standard of living we enjoy; the high-quality inexpensive food we eat; and the rural towns, villages and tourism that exist east of the sandstone curtain—there for everyone to enjoy and which connect us so successfully with our rich rural heritage—are all due in large part to the primary producers of this country. My constituents are having enough trouble fighting this cruel drought. They describe the low water allocations experienced by irrigators in the Murray system as the most difficult set of circumstances they have ever faced. They should not have to fight public opinion as well. (Time expired)804412:43:008044Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—`If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.' So spoke Shakespeare's Mark Antony in his funeral oration over the body of Julius Caesar, stabbed first by Casca then Trebonius, then Brutus and Cassius, his body rent at least 23 times by savage wounds from people who had conspired to destroy him. The bloodied remains of Caesar at the base of Pompey's statue that Antony referred to are equivalent to the remains of our Australian citizens butchered by sadistic people who were determined to destroy not only them but them as symbols of modern Western society. These people want to impose a singularity of vision, a singularity of purpose, a one-stop model for a society based on a simple, almost medieval theocratic state. We know that this has been going on for a long period of time. We also know that those people who were so savagely destroyed on 12 October understood that they came from a society that treasures differences and a recognition of the qualities of other people. They came from a society that is open, that is modern, that is Western and that believes you should be able to have tolerance towards others, that believes in compassion, that believes in modernity, that believes in separating out church and state and that believes fundamentally—even though sometimes there have been reactions against it—in an open, multicultural, cosmopolitan society. To have a society such as ours and to hold it together, you need to have a great deal of tolerance. That tolerance is enormously tested when the society as a whole and its individuals are attacked, savaged, burnt, damaged and destroyed. The impact is not only on them but also on every member of their family, and they will carry that impact through the rest of their lives. The people who have been so badly injured are in exactly the same position as our troops who went to war. These are civilians who should not have been in that position but we, as a country, should treat them in the same manner as we treat our returning soldiers, because the rules of the game have utterly changed. When we were called upon to participate in brutalities and savageries on a mass scale in the Sudan, the Boer War, the First World War and the Second World War—particularly with regard to the two world wars—they were sanctioned by governments as part of the old rules of war. Increasingly, civilians became the victims of those wars, and we know that tens of millions of people suffered and died. But it was not the case that an entire society had its heart ripped out by a small band of terrorists operating in a hit-and-run fashion. We are dealing here not only with our own country, the West and other advanced industrialised societies but also with all of those countries in our region—such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore—who have adopted Western democratic practices. They have adopted the notions that there should be a division between church and state and that there should be a tolerance of people from other faiths. They believe that people should be allowed to practise their religion, should be allowed to exercise their customs and should not be deprived of their life or liberty because of a belief in any particular religion or set of social customs. To hold true to being a tolerant society, we also need to be a society prepared for the exigencies of a modern war of terrorism waged against us. We can only do the right thing by those people who have had their lives taken from them and their association with their families sundered on 12 October if we not only treasure their memory but also undertake the fundamental steps to root out this terrorism that took their lives in such an unashamed way on 12 October.804512:48:008045Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—I rise in the adjournment debate to speak about small and medium sized businesses and the government's EMDG program. Before doing so, I acknowledge the very fine words of the member for Blaxland. I know that he enjoys the respect of every member of this parliament.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—It was a very good contribution.00AMXJohnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON—It is important for this parliament and every member of it to acknowledge the importance of small and medium sized businesses in this country and to acknowledge what the government is doing to promote employment opportunities for our citizens. One such program is the Commercialising Emerging Technologies Program, better known as the COMET program. This is a very worthwhile, innovative program initiated by the Howard government to help many of the businesses in our community to expand their products, processes and services. In my electorate of Ryan, this program has really taken hold. Many businesses have come on board with it and successfully applied for grants. It encourages innovation, enterprise and the spirit of entrepreneurship, which I think is at the heart of successful businesses and business practices in this country. Of course, successful businesses give rise to employment opportunities, which provide a source of sustenance for our community. It is very important that every member of this parliament acknowledges good programs, and I wish to do that in my speech today. The COMET program delivers tailored assistance for commercialisation and, very importantly, management skills development. Grants provide 80 per cent of the costs, with the remaining 20 per cent being met by the applicant. It is the practical nature of the program that has been highly regarded and has stimulated interest, particularly amongst medium sized businesses. I can vouch for those who have medium sized businesses in the electorate of Ryan, having visited many of them and spoken to them about their particular programs. Since its launch in November 1999, the COMET program has helped more than 600 businesses with about $33 million in funding. By April 2002, COMET companies had raised close to $100 million in capital to support their business growth and had entered into about 160 alliances and manufacturing agreements. This is certainly no figure to laugh at. In the last financial year, more than 200 companies had entered into agreements for assistance totalling $12.83 million through COMET to bring their innovative products to the marketplace. I am proud to say, and I am sure that all members of this parliament would agree, that the Australian spirit of adaptation, flexibility and innovation is alive and well in our country. I certainly vouch for that spirit and innovation in the federal seat of Ryan.In the last financial year, the COMET program provided $418,000 to nine local businesses in the seat of Ryan. I might mention a handful of these. There is the International EDG Group and Virtual Realms Pty Ltd, which creates 3D software for property development. In particular, there is a talented woman in my electorate, Ms Margaret Juliana Marshall, who created a product called Flaretite. This is a patented design which provides a sealant on an anaerobic seal. She is a very innovative Australian who is doing her part to create jobs and opportunities for the people of Brisbane. Another local company, Bireme Pty Ltd, creates apparatus for the diagnosis of bipolar disorder and monitors rates of switching between hemispheres of the brain. This is something that deserves the salute of all members of parliament, because this is what our country is all about—the innovative spirit to get ahead and to compete with best practices and others throughout the world. Another company, Multibase Australia Pty Ltd, has a file management system that has been developed for Microsoft records. That is something that we can be very proud of.As the federal member for Ryan, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to all the people in the seat of Ryan who do their bit to promote opportunities—commercial opportunities, in particular—for the community. They play a very important part in Australia, and it is important that every member of this parliament acknowledges, in their electorates, the great work that their citizens do to promote job opportunities for our fellow Australians. I pay tribute to them and vouch my continued support. (Time expired)804712:53:008047Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Australia needs higher standards of corporate governance. Section 995 of the Corporations Law states that, in dealing with securities, a person must not engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. Section 999 establishes a criminal offence for making a false statement or disseminating false information in connection with the sale of securities. Turnbull may have breached both sections. At a minimum, he is bound to face civil proceedings. Following its appointment in—10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. The member for Werriwa has persisted on several occasions this morning to put into the Hansard evidence which would be before the royal commission in New South Wales. I ruled in the House, and I will rule here again, that I believe it is a very sensitive area. I believe that people and individuals in this country have rights. I understand that the member for Werriwa believes in freedom of speech; so does everyone else. If there were no royal commission and members were calling for a royal commission, it would be in order to discuss it. If the royal commission had deliberated and come down with a finding, it would certainly be in order to discuss it. But, because the evidence is before the royal commission, and the royal commission has wide standing powers to gather evidence without any inhibition whatsoever, I believe that you are breaching the sub judice rule.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This collapse has exposed the two faces of Malcolm Turnbull, the FAI buyer who overnight became its notorious seller. In fact, Turnbull has had more facelifts than Phyllis Diller. In the space of 12 months he has become—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. You are flouting the ruling of the chair. I call the member for Parramatta.804712:55:008047Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Family and Community Services10—I rise today to acknowledge—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—These are not matters before the royal commission.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Member for Werriwa, I have ruled that it is sub judice.Dissent from Ruling804712:55:008047Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I move:That the Deputy Speaker's ruling be dissented from.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will refer it to the House.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—You should. I think it is a disgrace before this chamber. You are stopping me from talking about Turnbull on a matter that is not connected with a royal commission.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will adjourn the committee and refer you to the House.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I have moved dissent from your ruling. It is a disgrace.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—You cannot, as you know, come to any conclusion on a motion in this committee, so I will refer the dissent to the House. I call the member for Parramatta K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How can the committee continue the adjournment debate without a ruling on my motion that your ruling be dissented from? If the committee were to consider this and find in favour of my motion, surely I would be allowed to continue my adjournment speech raising matters about Malcolm Turnbull that have no connection to the royal commission?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I advise you to read the standing orders, which clearly say that you cannot have a resolution of a motion in this chamber; it can only be resolved in the House. I have ruled that you are in breach of the sub judice rule.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Deputy Speaker, further on that point of order. How can you possibly proceed with this adjournment debate without that ruling and without that motion being decided on by the House?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have just explained that. The member for Werriwa will resume his seat.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—No, I am not going to resume my seat.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will adjourn the Main Committee and report the fact that the member for Werriwa is in breach of the standing orders and that he refuses to accept the rulings of the chair.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I have moved a motion of dissent, and I want that motion dealt with.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have adjourned the committee and will report to the House.Main Committee adjourned at 12.57 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing8049The following answers to questions were circulated:8049(Question No. 656)6568049Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) How many Refugee Review Tribunal members and supporting staff were employed assessing appeals for asylum seekers in each year from 1990 to 2001, inclusive.(2) How many appeals were assessed in each year. (3) What was the country of origin of appellants, detailed for each year. (4) On average, how long did each appeal take to be assessed. (5) Can part (4) be broken down by country of origin; if so, what are the details for each year.8049Ruddock, 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) The total number of Members and staff employed at the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) (by financial year) is listed in the table below. All data runs from the date of commencement of Tribunal operations (1 July 1993). The Tribunal does not keep separate statistics on staff engaged specifically to process applications and staff engaged for other purposes. YearFull-time Members*Part-time Members*Staff**1993/199442141311994/199542141551995/199646171391996/199741151281997/199843241331998/199939191411999/200040231332000/2001 42191752001/20024224181* includes Members whose terms expired, or who resigned during the year** Public Service Act employees. Includes staff who may have resigned or left during the year (2) The number of RRT cases finalised (by financial year) is as follows: YearCases Finalised1993/199420711994/199545401995/199644911996/199746321997/199869691998/199974111999/200065892000/200159652001/20025865(3) See table below “RRT: Median Time from Lodgement to Finalisation”, which provides the median number of days taken to finalise appeals, from the date of receipt of the application by the RRT to the date of the RRT's decision, on the basis of the country of origin of the appellants, for each financial year since 1993/94 (4) The median number of days taken to finalise applications, from the date of receipt of the application by the RRT to the date of the RRT's decision, is as follows: YearMedian processing time1993/4158 days 1994/5263 days 1995/6320 days1996/7237 days 1997/8253 days 1998/9306 days 1999/00258 days 2000/01226 days 2001/02321 days(5) See table below “RRT: Median Time from Lodgement to Finalisation”.RRT: Median Time from Lodgement to FinalisationBy year and country for all cases finalised between 1 July 1993 and 30 June 2002.Median time in days from lodgement to finalisation. Financial Year/CountryCase FinalisedMedium Days1993/94Albania 6145Algeria 259Armenia 3166Australia 212Bangladesh 34158Belarus 1289Belgium 133Bosnia and Herzegovina 1251Brazil 472Bulgaria 3191Burma (Myanmar) 13199Cambodia 891Chile 2166China (PRC) 692164Colombia 1176Croatia 16168Cyprus 1168Egypt 3189Eritrea 1277Estonia 1199Ethiopia 3225Fiji 254153FYROM 12180Georgia 1180Germany 124Ghana 20113Hong Kong 993Hungary 7111India 135175Indonesia 89143Iran 17178Iraq 9179Israel 9175Italy 2183Jordan 1273Kenya 4113Kuwait 1151Laos 2151Lebanon 23172Macao 1203Malaysia 2147Mauritius 2117Moldova 1182Morocco 2281Nepal 9172Nigeria 214Not Given 18Pakistan 89178Papua Niugini 1180Peru 231Philippines 98168Poland 13107Portugal 1231Romania 15132Russian Federation 7135Senegal 1136Seychelles 1206Sierra Leone 1144Singapore 5145Somalia 161South Africa 2149South Korea 22122Sri Lanka 150158Stateless 234Syria 311Taiwan 1133Tanzania 3196Thailand 7175Tonga 85142Tunisia 2193Turkey 26145Ukraine 2194United Kingdom 260Unknown 2313Uzbekistan 2107Vietnam 100181Western Samoa 4145Yugoslavia 596Zaire 231Total2,0711591994/95Afghanistan 1457Albania 2349Algeria 11212Armenia 6261Bangladesh 63292Bolivia 1453Bosnia and Herzegovina 5321Brazil 10252Bulgaria 9295Burma (Myanmar) 33207Cambodia 654Chile 7414China (PRC) 2,043280Colombia 4188Comoros 1494Croatia 9273Cyprus 1448Ecuador 152Egypt 12248EL Salvador 1246Estonia 1365Ethiopia 10353Fiji 416232France 1429FYROM 28269Gambia 1340Gaza Strip 194Germany 2209Ghana 23354Greece 1580Honduras 2248Hong Kong 16209Hungary 1161India 170233Indonesia 219235Iran 40279Iraq 58384Ireland 7137Israel 10212Italy 1272Jordan 8250Kenya 840Kuwait 2239Laos 8285Latvia 1349Lebanon 74321Macao 1358Malawi 1293Malaysia 11317Mauritius 5335Moldova 1172Mozambique 2235Nepal 13277Nicaragua 2278Nigeria 385Not Given 2279Pakistan 135269Palestine (So Stated) 194Papua Niugini 1281Peru 11471Philippines 137253Poland 7157Portugal 1554Qatar 1525Romania 15271Russian Federation 12337Sierra Leone 4419Singapore 4101Slovakia 1360Slovenia 2232Somalia 454South Africa 5277South Korea 44178Sri Lanka 290274Stateless 36154Sudan 1406Sweden 1242Syria 7303Taiwan 8343Tanzania 988Thailand 21151Tonga 92250Tunisia 3107Turkey 30242Ukraine 7369United Kingdom 4144United States of America 1106Unknown 3413Vietnam 202284Western Samoa 12473Yugoslavia 50271Zaire 1461Zimbabwe 1175Total4,5402631995/96Afghanistan 1257Albania 3146Algeria 7469Argentina 1301Armenia 4155Australia 167Bangladesh 81538Belarus 1521Belgium 150Bolivia 3411Bosnia and Herzegovina 8215Brazil 17215Bulgaria 10271Burma (Myanmar) 26185Cambodia 9135Canada 2420Chile 8508China (PRC) 1,605404Colombia 8465Croatia 30272Cyprus 1423Dominican Republic 2229East Timor 3739Egypt 6219EL Salvador 2332Estonia 2141Ethiopia 19284Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1207Fiji 387272FYROM 28272Gambia 1259Gaza Strip 1401Georgia 1292Germany 2366Ghana 22332Greece 5304Guinea 1239Hong Kong 8139Hungary 8200India 165240Indonesia 318360Iran 48248Iraq 43364Ireland 5254Israel 16253Italy 1756Jordan 15329Kazakhstan 149Kenya 3596Kuwait 1227Laos 5440Lebanon 109344Liberia 335Macao 125Malaysia 29378Mauritius 5380Morocco 451Mozambique 277Nepal 25182Nigeria 3225Not Given 2249Pakistan 123327Palestine (So Stated) 1314Peru 16668Philippines 215329Poland 18320Portugal 4214Romania 9251Russian Federation 15236Senegal 191Singapore 5274Slovakia 3412Slovenia 1751Somalia 1358South Africa 14454South Korea 57352Sri Lanka 298328Stateless 20456Sudan 1504Syria 11240Taiwan 3366Tanzania 3370Thailand 30173Tonga 214189Tunisia 378Turkey 57184Ukraine 10397United Kingdom 14184United States of America 4406Unknown 135Uruguay 2241Vanuatu 3223Venezuela 1504Vietnam 115344Western Samoa 11377Yugoslavia 52295Zaire 2284Total4,4913201996/97Afghanistan 4199Albania 2194Algeria 1663Argentina 2747Armenia 2653Austria 1246Bahrain 2491Bangladesh 76742Belarus 3458Bolivia 3394Bosnia and Herzegovina 6489Brazil 11384Bulgaria 19142Burma (Myanmar) 9174Burundi 124Cambodia 5602Canada 1196Cape Verde 11,279Chile 19487China (PRC) 957564Colombia 19360Congo Republic (Brazzaville) 264Croatia 20468Cyprus 2456Czech Republic 4428East Timor 5867Ecuador 16322Egypt 21469EL Salvador 7169Eritrea 131Estonia 5212Ethiopia 13216Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 5105Fiji 307260France 4112FYROM 32686Gambia 1624Georgia 4446Germany 3107Ghana 25248Greece 149Hong Kong 7162Hungary 1274India 125279Indonesia 338316Iran 45175Iraq 2794Ireland 34129Israel 8384Italy 5119Japan 2103Jordan 10212Kazakhstan 15201Kenya 5266Kuwait 3224Kyrgyzstan 3247Laos 4317Latvia 3107Lebanon 219559Liberia 1084Libya 145Lithuania 3147Malaysia 27393Malta 1116Mauritius 5230Mexico 3196Moldova 3172Morocco 3503Nepal 19175Netherlands 183Nigeria 2379North Korea 5471Pakistan 140277Palestine (So Stated) 2305Peru 26512Philippines 673120Poland 8132Portugal 3155Romania 10248Russian Federation 26286Rwanda 156Sierra Leone 2113Singapore 7296Slovakia 2179Slovenia 2116Somalia 1953South Africa 11262South Korea 144368Sri Lanka 448148Stateless 9450Sudan 1162Sweden 2154Syria 21184Taiwan 14112Tanzania 344Thailand 146212Togo 138Tonga 120178Trinidad and Tobago 1218Tunisia 4146Turkey 76216Tuvalu 2312Uganda 1186Ukraine 9287United Kingdom 3115United States of America 4219Uruguay 4200Uzbekistan 1193Vanuatu 2771Venezuela 1399Vietnam 36246Western Samoa 13428Yugoslavia 36373Zaire 1347Zimbabwe 2401Total4,6322371997/98Afghanistan 556Albania 14215Algeria 7060Angola 7106Argentina 4429Armenia 2326Bahrain 142Bangladesh 92362Belarus 3419Benin 1294Bolivia 6235Bosnia and Herzegovina 3170Brazil 29168Bulgaria 24216Burma (Myanmar) 36320Cambodia 5229Canada 2164Chad 222Chile 15226China (PRC) 682357Colombia 72266Congo Democratic Republic of 486Costa Rica 1439Croatia 10366Cuba 1322Cyprus 5469Czech Republic 3158Ecuador 28211Egypt 25326EL Salvador 5180Estonia 4190Ethiopia 20239Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 10228Fiji 180205France 8282FYROM 26315Georgia 1270Germany 4210Ghana 17259Hong Kong 9377Hungary 2375India 228363Indonesia 1,298259Iran 77208Iraq 11252Ireland 16329Israel 15487Italy 3154Japan 8158Jordan 18309Kazakhstan 4249Kenya 8215Kuwait 1967Kyrgyzstan 176Laos 2347Latvia 9388Lebanon 323370Liberia 4310Libya 1196Lithuania 1213Malaysia 29209Mauritius 4292Mexico 4252Moldova 2175Morocco 7118Nepal 40361Nicaragua 2351Niger 1428Nigeria 23311Not Given 133Pakistan 254300Palestine (So Stated) 13259Papua Niugini 2326Peru 40216Philippines 1,740219Poland 4200Portugal 5140Romania 10227Russian Federation 34352Rwanda 1134Sierra Leone 2180Singapore 7294Slovakia 6221Somalia 5979South Africa 30251South Korea 129399Spain 1128Sri Lanka 328208Stateless 5223Sudan 896Syria 34292Taiwan 7162Tanzania 3241Thailand 270267Tonga 113186Trinidad and Tobago 1141Tunisia 256Turkey 66206Uganda 145Ukraine 4267United Kingdom 6167United States of America 149Unknown 136Uruguay 8329Vietnam 40400Western Samoa 15204Yemen Republic 159Yugoslavia 18317Zaire 2127Total6,9692531998/99Afghanistan 14102Albania 14254Algeria 6159Angola 6199Argentina 6328Armenia 2450Australia 31,904Azerbaijan 152Bangladesh 117469Belize 1422Bhutan 2368Bolivia 6283Bosnia and Herzegovina 11274Brazil 12155Bulgaria 9159Burma (Myanmar) 94440Burundi 376Cambodia 35463Cameroon 1183Canada 388Chad 2478Chile 15266China (PRC) 2,945288Colombia 118489Congo Democratic Republic of 353Congo Republic (Brazzaville) 1289Costa Rica 1401Croatia 8307Cuba 1157Czech Republic 5246Denmark 1325Ecuador 9352Egypt 26531EL Salvador 5348Estonia 1622Ethiopia 34267Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 12261Fiji 109147France 3453FYROM 49378Gambia 1295Gaza Strip 1278Georgia 218Ghana 52373Guinea 2976Honduras 1135Hong Kong 26391Hungary 23466India 286516Indonesia 584306Iran 99172Iraq 5563Ireland 12165Israel 14463Japan 2111Jordan 23374Kazakhstan 6287Kenya 15321Kuwait 2064Laos 18274Latvia 13424Lebanon 208372Liberia 8464Libya 4195Lithuania 3154Macao 3502Malawi 2274Malaysia 69200Mauritius 11,524Mexico 3169Morocco 6318Nepal 69496Niger 1151Nigeria 25179North Korea 238Not Given 2832Pakistan 146330Palestine (So Stated) 11310Papua Niugini 1673Peru 31379Philippines 544159Poland 9252Portugal 4333Romania 3490Russian Federation 25492Rwanda 2136Saudi Arabia 2132Seychelles 1542Sierra Leone 3501Singapore 6187Slovakia 3260Somalia 6999South Africa 19164South Korea 138414Sri Lanka 390471Stateless 564Sudan 20192Syria 26289Taiwan 39373Tanzania 3312Thailand 229123Tonga 19549Tunisia 7232Turkey 102351Uganda 129Ukraine 10365United Arab Emirates 1480United Kingdom 2380United States of America 21,006Uruguay 3280Uzbekistan 2222Vanuatu 21,657Venezuela 2419Vietnam 102510West Bank 1399Western Samoa 4216Yemen Republic 128Yugoslavia 9201Zambia 2181Total7,4113061999/00Afghanistan 4069Albania 27680Algeria 39106Angola 194Argentina 1255Armenia 1671Azerbaijan 1846Bangladesh 250597Bhutan 1443Bolivia 1447Bosnia and Herzegovina 7380Brazil 1474Bulgaria 17319Burkina Faso 1657Burma (Myanmar) 105666Cambodia 88483Canada 1536Chile 13455China (PRC) 938175Colombia 147625Congo Democratic Republic of 5104Croatia 9503Czech Republic 2420Denmark 142East Timor 11,269Ecuador 21504Egypt 51741EL Salvador 4363Eritrea 3489Ethiopia 14272Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 27275Fiji 129121Finland 1122FYROM 50389Gambia 12,015Gaza Strip 2427Georgia 8274Germany 2572Ghana 13149Guatemala 1494Guinea 2288Hong Kong 13173Hungary 142India 374607Indonesia 1,375420Iran 83161Iraq 13470Israel 121,974Japan 1472Jordan 21528Kazakhstan 4398Kenya 8524Kuwait 1391Kyrgyzstan 1872Laos 2285Latvia 2818Lebanon 57259Liberia 2406Libya 3606Lithuania 3430Macao 2669Malaysia 343103Mexico 1349Mongolia 1195Morocco 4295Mozambique 184Nepal 56744Nigeria 10168North Korea 21,122Oman 1116Pakistan 124494Palestine (So Stated) 12286Papua Niugini 2365Peru 33476Philippines 58594Poland 3356Portugal 1328Romania 16438Russian Federation 39743Rwanda 1157Saudi Arabia 2503Senegal 1475Seychelles 1695Sierra Leone 8189Singapore 3445Somalia 24101South Africa 17157South Korea 260210Sri Lanka 451737Stateless 19225Sudan 7188Swaziland 144Syria 6210Taiwan 3349Tajikistan 1418Tanzania 5209Thailand 86116Tonga 10105Tunisia 2254Turkey 13891Tuvalu 183Uganda 2230Ukraine 17365United Kingdom 358United States of America 4162Uzbekistan 3767Venezuela 1427Vietnam 111512West Bank 1413West Germany 1128Yemen Republic 471Yugoslavia 20552Zaire 197Zimbabwe 2651Total6,5892582000/01Afghanistan 16868Albania 19650Algeria 23144Angola 2479Argentina 1386Armenia 4592Bahrain 385Bangladesh 110616Belarus 3860Bosnia and Herzegovina 4441Brazil 3385Bulgaria 23769Burma (Myanmar) 144642Burundi 470Cambodia 65386Chile 11152China (PRC) 893220Colombia 60828Congo Democratic Republic of 4114Congo Republic (Brazzaville) 2540Cote D'Ivoire 370Croatia 2466Cyprus 1106Ecuador 2339Egypt 58672EL Salvador 3317Estonia 2725Ethiopia 9348Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 19442Fiji 296224FYROM 159Gabon 165Georgia 31544Germany 2351Ghana 350Greece 1249Hong Kong 11365India 414457Indonesia 1,093308Iran 29179Iraq 13975Ireland 1147Israel 6321Jordan 13210Kazakhstan 165Kenya 3856Kuwait 1243Kyrgyzstan 1413Laos 1369Latvia 9775Lebanon 62460Liberia 1505Lithuania 4509Luxembourg 133Malawi 1495Malaysia 176103Mali 140Marshal Islands 132Mexico 1420Moldova 7108Morocco 9143Nepal 40769Nicaragua 2623Niger 154Nigeria 1874North Korea 1784Pakistan 66493Palestine (So Stated) 3373Papua Niugini 391Peru 19443Philippines 487130Poland 1824Romania 4129Russian Federation 48570Rwanda 486Senegal 1998Sierra Leone 876Singapore 4443Solomon Islands 299Somalia 12137South Africa 4445South Korea 105123Sri Lanka 329726Stateless 3176Sudan 5327Syria 4392Taiwan 2387Tanzania 3272Thailand 162107Tonga 17173Tunisia 2136Turkey 62399Tuvalu 1136Uganda 7547Ukraine 71378United States of America 293Unknown 1172Uruguay 1392Uzbekistan 4775Vanuatu 1422Vietnam 98311Western Samoa 4165Yemen Republic 561Yugoslavia 22384Zambia 1873Total5,9652262001/02Afghanistan 32071Albania 25659Algeria 15112Angola 2339Argentina 9422Armenia 3616Austria 1459Azerbaijan 21,317Bahrain 3653Bangladesh 153840Belarus 11469Bolivia 7457Bosnia and Herzegovina 4216Brazil 12512Bulgaria 27644Burma (Myanmar) 84541Burundi 195Cambodia 16346Cameroon 3567Canada 1343Chile 26425China (PRC) 596314Colombia 97869Congo Democratic Republic of 462Congo Republic (Brazzaville) 1282Croatia 7754Cuba 6622Cyprus 3392East Timor 83,005Ecuador 13470Egypt 52503EL Salvador 2485Eritrea 2221Estonia 2380Ethiopia 13548Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 36751Fiji 371283France 143FYROM 67728Gambia 2336Georgia 17751Ghana 15523Guinea 1103Guinea-Bissau 1755Guyana 1522Hungary 7568India 690515Indonesia 617221Iran 273106Iraq 13466Ireland 2182Israel 10436Italy 6569Japan 2448Jordan 21578Kazakhstan 1661Kenya 3300Kyrgyzstan 4494Laos 8574Latvia 12810Lebanon 81560Liberia 1514Libya 1468Lithuania 6384Malawi 1380Malaysia 171127Maldives 1828Mali 1570Mauritania 1388Mauritius 3604Mexico 1584Moldova 26456Mongolia 7352Morocco 2219Nepal 128887New Zealand 1350Nigeria 50399North Korea 1196Pakistan 109722Palestine (So Stated) 29189Papua Niugini 2344Paraguay 1585Peru 44621Philippines 13792Poland 9530Portugal 2481Qatar 1488Romania 22423Russian Federation 78712Rwanda 192Saudi Arabia 1574Senegal 51,340Sierra Leone 11524Singapore 5717Slovenia 1444Solomon Islands 1516Somalia 14217South Africa 20610South Korea 107154Spain 11,023Sri Lanka 306581Stateless 2093Sudan 11792Sweden 1155Syria 41301Taiwan 10493Tanzania 4632Thailand 141102Togo 1778Tonga 1173Tunisia 479Turkey 59542Uganda 5786Ukraine 117588United Kingdom 2243United States of America 157Uruguay 6499Uzbekistan 6292Vanuatu 1395Venezuela 1103Vietnam 156275West Bank 2486Western Samoa 1457Yemen Republic 2227Yugoslavia 32759Zimbabwe 7315Total5,865321Grand Total48,5332598067(Question No. 730)7308067Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, 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 programmes 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) 2001-2002.8067Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NelsonRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, the National School Drug Education Strategy and the Council of Australian Governments Tough on Drugs in Schools measures.(2) (a) Nil, (b) Nil, (c) Nil, (d) $4,289,084, (e) $11,069,337 and (f) $4,841,000.(3) Not applicable.(4) Not applicable.(5) Funding cannot be broken down to expenditure by electoral division. The National School Drug Education Strategy and the Council of Australian Governments Tough on Drugs in Schools measures support two types of activity: State and Territory activities and national strategic initiatives. For State and Territory activities, education authorities put forward cross-sectoral submissions. Once approved, these proposals form the basis for a funding contract between the Commonwealth and education authorities. Funding is applied to initiatives that enhance drug education programmes and responses to drug issues across all schools. National strategic initiatives are offered for tender under Commonwealth procurement requirements and are approved by the Minister. National strategic initiatives focus on research and evaluation activities and educational resource development. 8068(Question No. 740)7408068Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Does the Minister administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations or businesses can apply for funding.(2) If so, what are these programs.(3) Does the Minister's Department advertise these funding opportunities.(4) 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, for each of the programs listed in part (2), (A) what was the name and postal address of each organisation that sought funding from the Commonwealth, (B) what was the purpose of the funding sought in each case and (C) for successful applications, what was the level of funding provided.8068Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(2) (a) The Wage Assistance programme, Community Employment Development Project Placement Incentive (CDEP PI), Structured Training and Employment Projects (STEP), National Indigenous Cadetship Project (NICP), Indigenous Small Business Fund (ISBF) and Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project (CLIEP) —all of these programmes are administered under the Indigenous Employment Policy (IEP) —Work for the Dole, Transition to Work, New Enterprise Incentive Scheme. (b) Job Network is the primary mechanism for the delivery of Commonwealth Government employment services. Job Network services are delivered by around 200 providers from the community, private and public sectors. The services are purchased by the Commonwealth through a competitive tender process and Job Network members deliver services on a contractual basis. Job Network has a strong outcomes focus and is not funding-based. Job Network members are paid for achieving results. Providers receive the highest payments when they place an eligible job seeker into a sustainable job. (3) (a) The department does not undertake major advertising campaigns for the IEP, except for the NICP. The NICP is marketed annually to attract applications from students. The marketing of elements of the IEP is undertaken by individual offices of the department in a targeted manner focussing on the relevant stakeholders. This usually involves the placement of advertisements in newspapers about specific elements of the IEP. In addition departmental officers undertake activities such as canvassing local community and businesses and attending forums where they can promote the IEP. The department has recently developed new IEP marketing material for distribution to businesses, communities and individuals. Information about IEP is also on the internet at www.workplace.gov.auIn relation to Work for the Dole, the Commonwealth has contracted organisations to operate as Community Work Coordinators (CWCs) to develop and manage Work for the Dole activities around Australia. One of the contractual obligations CWCs have is to advertise, market and consult Area Consultative Committees to encourage potential sponsor organisations (which can include community organisations) to put forward proposed Work for the Dole Activities. CWCs are also required to assist potential sponsor organisations to develop Work for the Dole proposals. In relation to Transition to Work and the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (currently a Job Network service), community organisations and businesses are able to tender to provide these Commonwealth funded programmes. Requests for Tender are sought by advertising widely in national and regional newspapers.My department also assists in the promotion of these programmes by printing and distributing promotional materials, such as brochures.(b) The purchase of Job Network services is conducted through a Request for Tender which is widely advertised. Successful tenderers for Job Network business are offered long-term contracts, usually for 3 years. The purchasing process for the third Job Network contract (Employment Services Contract 2003-2006) has already commenced and is being widely promoted. Further information on the Job Network tender is available at the Australian Workplace web site (www.workplace.gov.au). (4) I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of resources and effort that would be involved in breaking down the information sought into the electoral divisions requested.8069(Question No. 757)7578069Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Does the Minister administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations or businesses can apply for funding.(2) If so, what are these programs.(3) Does the Minister's Department advertise these funding opportunities.(4) 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, for each of the programs listed in part (2), (A) what was the name and postal address of each organisation that sought funding from the Commonwealth, (B) what was the purpose of the funding sought in each case and (C) for successful applications, what was the level of funding provided.8069Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(2) (a) The Wage Assistance programme, Community Employment Development Project Placement Incentive (CDEP PI), Structured Training and Employment Projects (STEP), National Indigenous Cadetship Project (NICP), Indigenous Small Business Fund (ISBF) and Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project (CLIEP) —all of these programmes are administered under the Indigenous Employment Policy (IEP) —Work for the Dole, Transition to Work, New Enterprise Incentive Scheme. (b) Job Network is the primary mechanism for the delivery of Commonwealth Government employment services. Job Network services are delivered by around 200 providers from the community, private and public sectors. The services are purchased by the Commonwealth through a competitive tender process and Job Network members deliver services on a contractual basis. Job Network has a strong outcomes focus and is not funding-based. Job Network members are paid for achieving results. Providers receive the highest payments when they place an eligible job seeker into a sustainable job. (3) (a) The department does not undertake major advertising campaigns for the IEP, except for the NICP. The NICP is marketed annually to attract applications from students. The marketing of elements of the IEP is undertaken by individual offices of the department in a targeted manner focussing on the relevant stakeholders. This usually involves the placement of advertisements in newspapers about specific elements of the IEP. In addition departmental officers undertake activities such as canvassing local community and businesses and attending forums where they can promote the IEP. The department has recently developed new IEP marketing material for distribution to businesses, communities and individuals. Information about IEP is also on the internet at www.workplace.gov.auIn relation to Work for the Dole, the Commonwealth has contracted organisations to operate as Community Work Coordinators (CWCs) to develop and manage Work for the Dole activities around Australia. One of the contractual obligations CWCs have is to advertise, market and consult Area Consultative Committees to encourage potential sponsor organisations (which can include community organisations) to put forward proposed Work for the Dole Activities. CWCs are also required to assist potential sponsor organisations to develop Work for the Dole proposals. In relation to Transition to Work and the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (currently a Job Network service), community organisations and businesses are able to tender to provide these Commonwealth funded programmes. Requests for Tender are sought by advertising widely in national and regional newspapers.My department also assists in the promotion of these programmes by printing and distributing promotional materials, such as brochures. (b) The purchase of Job Network services is conducted through a Request for Tender which is widely advertised. Successful tenderers for Job Network business are offered long-term contracts, usually for 3 years. The purchasing process for the third Job Network contract (Employment Services Contract 2003-2006) has already commenced and is being widely promoted. Further information on the Job Network tender is available at the Australian Workplace web site (www.workplace.gov.au).(4) I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of resources and effort that would be involved in breaking down the information sought into the electoral divisions requested.8070(Question No. 765)7658070Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 2002:(1) Is he aware that all the great apes, the gorilla, bonobo, chimpanzee and orang-utan are on the verge of extinction.(2) Is he aware that 15,000, or nearly 80%, of the eastern lowland gorillas in the Democratic Republic of Congo have been killed and eaten by coltan miners.(3) Is he aware that hundreds of trees are being removed illegally from Tanjung Putting National Park in Kalimantan, Borneo, thus destroying the orang-utans only home.(4) Is he aware that in 2001 the UN declared the extinction clock was at one minute to midnight for all the apes and set up a task force to try and raise awareness and funds to try and prevent the extinction of the apes.(5) Is he also aware that the UK has already pledged support to the UN task force.(6) Will the Australian Government follow the lead of the UK and take action to help these animals.8070Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The following is the answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes. Australia is a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora which aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. The gorilla, bonobo, chimpanzee and orang-utan are listed in Appendix 1 of the Convention, Appendix 1 being the highest level of protection afforded under the Convention for species threatened with extinction.At the domestic level, the Government is committed to strategies to conserve Great Apes by contributing resources and expertise via our zoos to conservation breeding programs for Great Apes. During 2001, both Taronga and Melbourne Zoos participated in the European region's zoological breeding program for gorillas by facilitating the exchange of gorillas from Australia to Europe for use in conservation breeding programs.(2) The Government, through the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, supports a number of initiatives that may help in reducing demand for coltan, thus reducing the pressure on the apes' habitat through mining activities. These initiatives include the Australian Battery Recycling Program and the Mobile Phone Industry Recycling Program.(3) Australia has raised regularly its concerns with the Government of Indonesia regarding the destruction of its forests. The Australian Government, working closely with other aid donors, will continue to promote forest policy reform in Indonesia.(4) Yes.(5) Yes.(6) In addition to the payment of annual fees, Australia makes a significant intellectual and leadership contribution to international fora such as CITES and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, both of which are partners under the United Nations Great Apes Survival Project. Australia will be monitoring the progress of this Project. The UN seeks funds for many worthy projects to save endangered species throughout the world, and each country contributes according to ability, national priorities and regional strategies. While the Government will seek to maximise its contributions to the efforts of UNEP and others to save the Great Apes, as well as other endangered species throughout the world, Australia's capacity to assist has to be balanced against the enormous effort required to conserve and protect Australia's native species and complex ecosystems. 8071(Question No. 849)8498071Beazley, Kim, MPMr BeazleyPE4BrandALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 22 August 2002:(1) Is it a fact that there are currently some 1500 people in Australia suffering with Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia.(2) Is the Minister aware of clinical trials on patients in the chronic phase of the disease which show an 88% overall haematological response to the drug Glivec.(3) Is the Minister also aware that the same clinical trials on patients in the accelerated or blast phase have shown only a 63% and 26% response to the drug.(4) Is it a fact that a recent meeting of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee denied subsidisation of this drug under the National Health Scheme for patients in the chronic phase of this disease.(5) If so, is the Minister able to provide advice about why Glivec has only been listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for leukaemia sufferers in the acclerated or blast phase of this disease when the patient's prognosis is extremely poor and the recovery rate less than 25%.(6) What has been the demand from physicians and patients for access to this therapy.(7) What information does the Minister have about the long term prognosis of patients treated with this drug.(8) What is the (a) weekly and (b) annual cost to patients who are being treated with Glivec and whose drugs are not subsidised under the PBS.8071Andrews, Kevin, MPMr AndrewsHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes.(2) to (3) Yes, these trials are reported in the approved product information for Glivec®.(4) to (6) The Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator the Hon. Kay Patterson, announced on 10 September 2002 that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) at its recent September meeting had recommended to Government that Glivec be subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for the treatment of patients in the chronic phase of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Senator Patterson said patients will have subsidised access to Glivec from 21 October 2002.(7) Definitive data on the long-term prognosis of CML patients treated with Glivec is not yet available. At the time of submission of the original application, only a small number of patients had received the drug for periods greater than 12 months. However, it is known that a proportion of patients will become resistant to the drug and their disease will relapse. (8) The sponsor of Glivec has estimated that the weekly cost of Glivec to patients who are not subsidised by the PBS would be more than $1,000 and that the yearly cost would be almost $58,000.8071(Question No. 865)8658071Beazley, Kim, MPMr BeazleyPE4BrandALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, upon notice, on 27 August 2002:(1) What was the annual intake and completion rate of apprentices and traineeships in the five years prior to the operation of the New Apprenticeship system and what have been the annual figures since then.(2) What were the numbers involved in trade apprenticeships and their completion rates prior to the introduction of the New Apprenticeship system and what has been the equivalent performance in the same trades in the years since the introduction of the new system.(3) What were the average numbers of years served by each apprentice and trainee to complete a qualification under the system prior to the introduction of the New Apprenticeship system and what has been the average since then. (4) What has been the number of training hours per employee in the workforce on an annual basis since 1991.(5) What percentage of apprentices and trainees used the facilities of TAFE for part of their qualification prior to the introduction of the New Apprenticeship system and what has been the percentage since then.8072Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NelsonRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Commencements:Table 1 below gives the annual commencements, completions and in-training figures from 1993.It is difficult to make comparisons prior to 1995, however, because there was no national collection with a common standard until then. There has been strong growth in apprenticeship and traineeship numbers since 1996, and this has been maintained since the introduction of the New Apprenticeship arrangements in 1998. The number of training commencements doubled from 114,300 in 1997 prior to the introduction of New Apprenticeships to 228,500 four years later (Table 1). Table 1: Apprenticeship and traineeship commencements and completions for the year ending 31 December and the number in-training at 31 December, 1993 to 2001Calendar year CommencementsCompletionsApprentices and trainees in-training199361,00045,000134,000199462,00039,000123,000199564,60031,500141,400199689,80036,600163,3001997114,30051,300185,5001998154,90060,400216,9001999198,40074,400255,2002000210,20084,400294,9002001228,50096,300329,600Source: NCVER national apprentice and trainee data collection as at 30 March 2002. Note that the figures for 1993 and 1994 predate the introduction of a national collection based on a common standard, so are estimates only.Completions:Completions have also been growing strongly since 1996, and have increased by almost 90% since the introduction of New Apprenticeships. Although it is possible to provide the number of completions, it is more difficult to provide `completion rates'. This is principally because people do not necessarily complete in the year they commence - they may take four years or more to complete. When commencements are rising quickly this leads to an inevitable time lag before completions catch up.The National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) does not track individuals over time. To overcome this, some studies have used crude proxies to determine the ratio of commencements to completions, but this method can produce very misleading results as it does not take into account recommencements or unknown data. It could, therefore, significantly under-report the level of completion. In 2000 the NCVER conducted a survey of contracts of training that had passed the date of completion without an outcome having been reported (`expired contracts'). This survey suggested that completions may be understated by as much as 15-20% nationally. The NCVER is currently undertaking another, more detailed survey of `expired contracts', and findings are expected to be available later in the year.The most robust estimates of completion rates are those derived using longitudinal studies. Drawing from studies of this type, the NCVER reported in Outcomes and Completions of New Apprenticeships: At a Glance that during the mid-1990's completions rates were approximately 55% for trainees and between 70-77% for apprentices. (2) The numbers of people participating in apprenticeships and traineeships in `traditional trades' have risen since the introduction of the integrated New Apprenticeship arrangements, although there was a slight decline in 2001 (Table 2). This may in part reflect the decline in the number of employees in the traditional trades reported in that year. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate that employees in `trades and related occupations' declined from 13.1% of the labour force in 2000, compared with 12.8% in 2001 (unpublished data from Labour Force Survey Estimates by Occupation - November 2000 and 2001.)The major change in the number of completions occurred with the introduction of a new reporting standard in July 1994, and is consequently the result of the changing scope of the collections. Since 1995, the number of completions has increased by 20.26%, outstripping the growth in commencements (12.47%).As noted in response to question (1), it is not possible to estimate the completion rates accurately.Table 2: Trade apprenticeship and traineeship completions for the year ending 31 December and the number in-training at 31 December, 1993 to 2001Calendar year CompletionsTrade apprentices and trainees in-training199337,000123,000199429,000109,000199522,700120,800199624,100122,900199726,500122,700199827,800124,100199927,000129,000200025,600131,900200127,300126,900Source: NCVER national apprentice and trainee data collection as at 30 March 2002. Note that the figures for 1993 and 1994 predate the introduction of a national collection based on a common standard, so are estimates only.(3) It is not possible to estimate the average number of years served by apprentices and trainees to complete a qualification since the introduction of the New Apprenticeships arrangements because a large proportion of the contracts are yet to finish. (The New Apprenticeship system was only introduced on 1 January 1998 and it often takes more than four years before the completion of an apprenticeship is reported.)However, it is possible to estimate the expected duration based on the initial training contracts. This suggests that the length of training has only changed marginally, from 2.0 years prior to the introduction of New Apprenticeships to 1.9 years subsequently. The expected duration of training contracts has also been increasing since 1998 for both full-time and for part-time contracts (Table 4). Table 3: Average number of years for the expected duration of full-time and part-time training contract commencements prior to the introduction and after the introduction of New ApprenticeshipsFull-time contractsPart-time contractsAll contractsPrior to introduction of NA*2.031.532.01After introduction of NA1.902.091.93All years (1995 to 2001)1.932.051.95* 1995 to 1997.Table 4: Average number of years for the expected duration of full-time and part-time training contract commencements by calendar year, 1998 to 2001Full-time contractsPart-time contractsAll contracts*19981.751.491.7219991.841.881.8520001.962.071.9820012.012.412.12All years (1998 to 2001)1.902.091.93*This includes contracts for which the full or part-time status is unknown.(4) Information is not collected regularly on the average number of training hours undertaken by employees in the workforce.The only information available is from the Employer Training Expenditure surveys conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1990, 1993 and 1996 (summarised in Table 5), and the results from these surveys should be treated with caution. They are a simple average over all occupations and income levels, and so mask substantial variations between groups. They also only take account of `formal' training conducted during working hours, so do not reflect all training activity.Table 5: Average number of hours of formal training July to September quarter, 1990, 1993 and 1996.Average no of formal hours of training19905.919935.619964.9Source: ABS Employer Training Expenditure Cat No 6353.(5) There are no data available on the percentage of apprentices and trainees who use TAFE facilities. The NCVER collects information on apprenticeships and traineeships as well as information on vocational education and training undertaken with TAFE institutes. However, it is not possible to make direct links between the two collections. This issue is being addressed and the off-the-job training of apprentices and trainees is expected to be reported in 2004.8074(Question No. 889)8898074Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 August 2002:(1) Are the National Guidelines for referral of politically sensitive matters to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) issued by the Attorney-General on 28 October 1996 and 14 May 1998 still current; if not, what are the current National Guidelines for referral of politically sensitive matters to the AFP.(2) Does the Government apply any written criteria in determining what constitutes a politically sensitive matter requiring notification to the Minister responsible for the AFP; if so, what criteria are applied.8074Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, the letters I issued on 28 October 1996 and 14 May 1998 reflect the Government's long-standing procedure in relation to the referral of politically sensitive matters to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) by Commonwealth Ministers or agencies. This procedure requires that matters of a politically sensitive nature requiring the assistance of the AFP are raised with the Minister responsible for the AFP by the relevant Minister or Department in the first instance, rather than being referred directly by them to the AFP. The procedure exists only to enable the Minister responsible for the AFP to be informed of significant matters affecting his responsibility for the AFP. The Minister does not, and should not, have a power or function of deciding what particular allegations the AFP will or will not investigate. The decision to seek an AFP investigation will, unless the matter affects other portfolios, remain that of the complainant Minister or agency. I last wrote to Federal Ministers on 22 November 1999 reiterating the procedure. Following the appointment of new Ministers after the November 2001 election, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator the Hon Chris Ellison, wrote to the Prime Minister and all Federal Ministers on 19 February 2002 to remind ministers once again of this procedure. The procedures are only “National Guidelines” to the extent that they apply to all Commonwealth agencies wherever they are located. (2) No, it is a matter for the referring agency to determine what constitutes a `politically sensitive matter'. 8075(Question No. 902)9028075Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 16 September 2002:What are the daily figures for all immigration reception and detention centres, including those on Manus Island, Nauru and the facility at Baxter, for which the Government may recover costs pursuant to section 209 of the Migration Act. 8075Ruddock, 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:The daily maintenance amounts, which the Commonwealth is able to recover pursuant to section 209 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) for onshore Immigration Reception and Processing Centres (IRPCs) and Immigration Detention Centres (IDCs) are as follows: Villawood$60.00Maribyrnong$147.00Perth$191.00Woomera$63.00Pt Hedland$63.00Curtin$63.00There are currently no daily maintenance amounts for Baxter IRPC or the facility on Christmas Island. The daily rates for both Baxter and Christmas Island are currently being determined together with a revision of the rates for all the other centres. Detainees do not accumulate a debt to the Commonwealth for the costs of detention until a daily maintenance amount is determined for a specific place in a specified period.Section 209 of the Act is not applicable to the facilities on the Republic of Nauru or Papua New Guinea (Manus) as neither of them form part of Australian territory for Australian law to apply.There are currently no detainees at Cocos (Keeling) Island and therefore no daily maintenance amount has been determined.8075(Question No. 911)9118075Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 16 September 2002:(1) Will he bring up-to-date the information provided in the answer to question No. 2889 (Hansard, 17 September 2001, page 30827) on the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region which came into effect on 1 February 1999.(2) Has Australia consulted with New Zealand about the Convention.8075McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Council of Europe/UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education in the European Region (the Lisbon Recognition Convention) was tabled for ratification in both Houses of Parliament on March 12, 2002. In July 2002 the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties of the Australian Parliament recommended that Australia ratify the Convention. The ratification was approved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and by the Attorney General. On 3 October 2002, the Governor-General in Council authorised the Minister for Foreign Affairs to draw up, complete and deposit the instrument of ratification for the Lisbon Convention. DEST is organising to deposit the Ratification documents for the Lisbon Convention at UNESCO in Paris on 17 October 2002. A ceremony for the Ratification will be held at the UNESCO Global Forum on that same day. By ratifying the Convention, Australia is renewing its commitment to uphold principles of fair practice and non-discrimination in assessment and recognition procedures, while signalling to other countries (and particularly to Europe ) that its higher education system is outward looking and well equipped to operate in an internationalised environment.(2) New Zealand has not been consulted on the ratification of the Lisbon Convention by Australia. New Zealand is not eligible to become a party to the Lisbon Recognition Convention without a formal process of application. For this reason it was not considered that there would be significant value in including New Zealand in the process of consultation.The National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition has a cooperative working relationship with its New Zealand counterpart, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and there are few difficulties in the recognition of higher education qualifications between these two closely related systems.8076(Question No. 918)9188076Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 2002:(1) With respect to his Department's raid of De Lorenzo Ceramics on 9 September 2002, (a) when was the raid conducted, (b) how many suspected illegal immigrants were caught, (c) did any suspected illegal immigrants escape the raid and (d) what action has been taken by his Department against the illegal immigrants.(2) How and when did his Department become aware of the employment of suspected illegal immigrants by De Lorenzo Ceramics.(3) What action will be taken by his Department against De Lorenzo Ceramics and what penalties can the company face for employing illegal migrants.8076Ruddock, 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) (a) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) compliance staff visited Di Lorenzo Ceramics at approximately 07:00am on Monday 9 September 2002.(b) Two persons were identified as working in breach of their visa conditions and their visas were subsequently cancelled. A further four unlawful non-citizens were identified. All six persons were detained.(c) One of the six persons of compliance interest escaped during the operation.(d) The remaining five unlawful non-citizens were escorted to the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.One person purchased an airline ticket and departed Australia on Thursday 12 September 2002.Three persons are awaiting the issue of valid travel documents to facilitate departure.One person provided an airline ticket and passport, and was released on a Bridging Visa E (Subclass 050) subject to a $15,000 bond to depart Australia on 28 September 2002. This person did not depart and has become an unlawful non-citizen. Efforts to locate and detain this person are underway.Efforts continue to locate the sixth unlawful non-citizen who escaped during the compliance field operation. The assistance of the NSW Police has been sought.(2) Community information was first provided to the Department on 6 February 2001 alleging that Di Lorenzo Ceramics employed illegal workers. On 19 March 2001, a compliance visit was made to Di Lorenzo Ceramics and a complete staff list was subsequently provided by this company. No illegal workers were identified from this list. Community information alleging Di Lorenzo Ceramics employed illegal workers was received on a further three occasions. On each occasion the allegation was investigated, however no persons working illegally for Di Lorenzo Ceramics were located or detained as a result of the information provided.(3) It would now appear that some contractors undertaking work for Di Lorenzo Ceramics were employing illegal workers. The Department is currently investigating the links between the illegal workers and the tiling contractors to determine whether Illegal Worker Warning Notices may be issued to these employers. No action against Di Lorenzo Ceramics is considered as there is no evidence that their company has employed illegal workers. 8077(Question No. 924)9248077Roxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon83KGellibrandALP00 asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 2002:What are the details of the number of Outside School Hours Care places allocated to each Federal electoral division, broken down into (a) Before School Care, (b) After School Care and (c) Vacation places.8077Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Current accurate information in respect of the matters referred to in the honourable member's question is not readily available. It would be a major task to assemble it and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of resources and effort that would be involved in breaking down the information sought into the electoral divisions requested.8077(Question No. 942)9428077Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 2002:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 485 (Hansard, 16 September 2002, page 6307) and No. 560 (Hansard, 6 September 2002, page 6312), for 1996-97 and each subsequent year, how many applications for Australian citizenship were (a) received, (b) approved and (c) rejected by his Department.(2) How many applications were rejected because (a) the applicant was not of good character, (b) the applicant was unable to speak and understand basic English, (c) the applicant had not completed the requisite periods of residence in Australia or (d) of other grounds.8077Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HardgraveCK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Year(a) Applications received(b) Applications approved(c) Applications rejected Note1996-97109,631102,1002,5151997-9889,11187,1392,3411998-9970,13164,2381,2831999-200061,13262,5011,3882000-0163,75162,7191,4152001-0275,72673,1881,296Note: The difference between applications received and the sum of applications approved and rejected is accounted for by (1) applications finalised by other means, for example, withdrawal by the applicant, and (2) applications not finalised that are carried into the next year for decision.(2) Applications for the grant of Australian citizenship are processed using paper applications and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs' (DIMIA) Integrated Client Service Environment (ICSE) client management system. The information requested on each application is kept on individual paper files, stored in DIMIA's registry system and then archived at the appropriate time. Accordingly, the very detailed information sought is not readily available in consolidated form and it would be a major task to collect and assemble it. The practice of successive governments has been not to authorise the expenditure of time and money involved in assembling such information on a general basis.