2002-10-224013REPS822902002-10-22—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice8229822914:01:008229Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given the necessarily short notice of arrangements for the memorial service this week, what discussions have you had with airlines to ensure that family members will be able to attend?8229Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The precise answer, speaking for myself personally, is that I have not had any discussions. If the honourable gentleman believes there could be a difficulty, then I will immediately look into it. I hesitate to say more, because it may well have been at a departmental level that something has been done. I personally have not had discussions, but I will make every inquiry and, if in fact there is going to be a difficulty, we will see what alternative arrangements we can make.822914:02:008229Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House if there is a case for further strengthening the law relating to hand guns in Australia?8229Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The community, naturally enough, in the wake of the very tragic incident in Melbourne yesterday at Monash University, again has in its mind the dangers that exist from the proliferation of hand guns in this country. The House will be aware of the greatly strengthened gun laws that came out of the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996. There is already independent evidence that the buy-back that followed the combined action of Commonwealth and state governments at that time—which had very strong bipartisan support, let me acknowledge in this parliament—withdrew many hundreds of thousands of guns from the community and that that has been successful in reducing the murder rate in Australia, or certainly the murder rate involving guns.When I have the opportunity on Thursday after the memorial service to meet the premiers and chief ministers to sign the intergovernmental agreement on counter-terrorism, I intend to also at that time raise with them the issue of further strengthening of gun laws through whatever additional steps need to be taken by both the Commonwealth and the state governments. The only way we can get a sensible strengthening of gun laws in this country is for all of the governments to work together and not for people to start blaming one or other jurisdiction. I am not blaming the states, and there is no case for the states blaming the Commonwealth. The police ministers already have this issue on their agenda, and I understand it is going to be discussed at a meeting of police ministers—what, on 7 or 8 November?7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams—In two weeks time.ZD4Mr HOWARD—In two weeks time. That is probably pretty close to 7 November. It is going to be discussed there. I just wanted to make the point that, while the premiers and I will not be able to have a detailed discussion, as we are meeting on Thursday, albeit briefly, to sign the intergovernmental agreement, I intend to raise this matter with them—not in a spirit of criticism but in a spirit of seeing whether there are additional things we can do in order to take more weapons out of society. I have a very strong view that, consistent with protecting the rights of sporting shooters in a legitimate sense, I am still alarmed at the large number of automatic hand guns there are circulating in the Australian community—I really am. There are obviously further changes that can be made at both state and federal levels that can strengthen gun laws.I ought to inform the House that recently there has been quite a dramatic increased Customs intervention at our borders. We now have 100 per cent of postal items either X-rayed or inspected; indeed, every single parcel coming into Australia through Australia Post large enough to carry a gun or a gun part is now X-rayed. In addition, 100 per cent of passengers coming into Australia through our airports have their luggage X-rayed; 70 per cent of all air cargo consignments entering Australia are X-rayed; and inspection rates at sea ports have been and will continue to be increased through the use of trace-particle detectors—that is, ion scan equipment—X-ray equipment capable of examining pallet sized cargo and mobile X-ray machines. By November of this year, the first state-of-the-art container X-ray facility is scheduled to be fully operational in Melbourne, which will allow Customs to inspect up to 100 complete containers a day. Further facilities in Brisbane, Sydney and Fremantle will come on line later this year and into 2003.It is always possible for governments plural to do more in this area and, as I say, I will be approaching the discussion on Thursday not in a spirit of finger pointing but in a spirit of seeing whether the state and federal governments can cooperate further to try and achieve together an even tougher regime in relation to automatic hand guns. We have seen what can be achieved when we work together in relation to long arms—that has been a very successful policy. Now we will see what we can do if we can work together in relation to automatic hand guns.823014:07:008230Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and it relates to the answer he has just given—and I welcome his commitment to talk with the state premiers on Thursday about this very important issue. I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls saying on 17 April that he had asked his department and the Attorney-General's Department for advice then on ways to tighten hand gun import laws. Does he also recall saying at that time:I will leave no stone unturned to tighten the laws as much as I humanly can, and I'm quite happy to talk to any of the state premiers about this ...Prime Minister, can you inform the House what advice you did receive from the two departments, what discussions you have had with state premiers on this issue since 17 April, and what action your government has taken since this statement on 17 April to tighten hand gun import laws?8230Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will have to get precise advice on advice and exchanges, and I am not going to try and do that off the top of the head. But I just remind the Leader of the Opposition of the many measures that I outlined in answer to the question. That does represent solid, concrete federal government action.823014:09:008230Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed also to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the objectives of his forthcoming visit to Mexico for the APEC leaders summit?8230Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The APEC leaders meeting is always an important occasion for this country because it brings together nations that we relate to economically, politically and strategically in the Asia-Pacific region. This year's meeting will have added relevance because of the tragic events in Bali. It will be an opportunity for me to again speak to the Indonesian President to discuss, in more detail and face to face, the progress of the joint operation being conducted to try and find who is responsible for the outrage in Bali. It will be an opportunity collectively for the APEC leaders to reaffirm their very strong opposition to terrorism and to see whether there are other measures that cooperatively we can embrace in order to further strengthen the fight against terrorism.It is sadly the case that, just as the last APEC leaders meeting in Shanghai took place in the wake of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, so it is that this APEC meeting in Mexico will take place in the wake of the terrorist outrage that has claimed so many Australian lives on 12 October. Terrorism not only has an enormous human cost but it also has a potentially devastating effect on economic activity and economic confidence. The impact of this attack on the economy of Bali in particular, and of Indonesia more generally, is readily apparent, I am sure, to everybody in this House.Beyond that, the APEC meeting will be an opportunity to reaffirm the Bogor goals. I will certainly be going there with the intention of reaffirming the Australian government's very strong commitment to those goals and to the goals of a more open and therefore more profitable world trading system. Prosperity is important for regional stability. The provision of greater economic growth and more jobs will provide greater internal resistance to the blandishments of terrorism, and it will provide less fertile ground in which terrorism may flourish. It is important that we continue to work towards removing the barriers to trade and to help stimulate world economic growth.I hope that APEC will send a very strong message of support for the current World Trade Organisation round, which offers major gains for both developed and developing countries. The World Bank estimates that export earnings of the world's poorest countries are depressed by at least 10 per cent because those countries are shut out of the world's great agricultural markets—namely, the United States, the European Union and Japan. It has to be said again that, if the developed world were to dismantle protective trade barriers, that would do infinitely more for the future growth and prosperity of developing countries than multiples of the official development aid that wealthy countries now provide. I have to say again to the European Union, to the United States and to Japan—countries and, in the case of the European Union, areas that talk frequently and understandably about overseas aid; and the contribution they make to that is to be praised—`You could do a lot more for the countries you send overseas aid to, if you got rid of those trade barriers.'The history of the developing world in the last few years is a stark comparison between those countries that have been able to access globalisation and those that have not. It is very hard for a poor, impoverished country to access globalisation when it cannot export its product into the biggest markets in the world. That is the problem. It is a bigger problem than the relative paucity of overseas development aid. It is one of the reasons why we continue to criticise the trading policies of the European Union. It is why I express concern about the trading policies, in agriculture in particular, of the United States and also of Japan. This will be an opportunity for me to rearticulate those views, particularly in relation to the APEC members that fall into that category. I hope that, out of APEC, we can get a reaffirmation of the importance of more open trading systems for the future growth prospects of developing countries.823114:15:008231Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it relates to the issue of gun importation. Prime Minister, are you aware of concerns expressed earlier today by Mr Paul Mullett, Secretary of the Victorian Police Association, about the illegal importation of hand guns into Australia? Are you aware of estimates that 80 per cent of illegal guns are brought into Australia by gun-runners? Prime Minister, doesn't this confirm the need for an Australian coastguard to combat the gun-runners?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa has the call.K26Mr LATHAM—They think gun-runners are funny; they are not. They are threatening our streets and our safety.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa has the choice of leaving the chamber or addressing his remarks through the chair.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have already required the opposition to hear the member for Werriwa.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—How about the government!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition. I have already required the government to listen to the member for Werriwa. The member for Werriwa has the call and will address his remarks through the chair.K26Mr LATHAM—Prime Minister, doesn't this confirm the need for an Australian coastguard to combat the gun-runners, to adequately protect our borders and to make our streets and communities safer? In your meeting with the state premiers on Thursday will you take forward the idea of an Australian coastguard and fully fund and support this important commitment for making our community safer?8232Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the honourable member for Werriwa, I inform the House that I have not seen those remarks from the Victorian police officer. I will have a look at them afterwards. I again draw the member for Werriwa's attention to the answer I gave in relation to the measures we have taken recently. They involve the situation now where 100 per cent of postal items are either X-rayed or inspected—100 per cent!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Do you think gun-runners use the mail?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Gun-runners always use the mail!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Indeed every single parcel coming into Australia through Australia Post large enough to carry a gun or a gun part is X-rayed. One hundred per cent of passengers coming into Australia through our airports have their luggage X-rayed and 70 per cent of all air cargo consignments entering Australia are X-rayed. The member for Werriwa raises the issue of a coastguard. This was raised in the last election campaign. We examined the proposal very carefully, again. The answer is: I do not believe the introduction of a coastguard, as outlined by the Labor Party, will do anything to achieve the outcome that he has argued. All a coastguard, as proposed by the Labor Party, will do is weaken the capacity and the resources of the Royal Australian Navy.823214:18:008232Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on the status of the Bali public appeal being coordinated by the Australian Red Cross? How will these funds be used to assist the victims of this tragedy and their families?8232Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Petrie for her question. I informed the House last week of the establishment by the Australian Red Cross of an Australia-wide appeal to help the victims of the Bali bombing. On Sunday night the Seven Network conducted a telethon, which raised around $2.5 million in support of the victims of the Bali bombings. Australians have responded very generously to this appeal. So far, including the amounts which have been donated by the Commonwealth and other governments, the total donated to the Red Cross Bali appeal stands at $9 million. This is a great achievement by all Australians showing practical concern and care for their fellow Australians, particularly for victims who are injured and for their families. The donations to the appeal can be used in two ways: to assist those victims and their families or to assist the Red Cross to continue to provide relief in Bali to cover future needs, including recovery and reconstruction.The foreign minister has already announced humanitarian assistance of $300,000 in the form of cash grants to the Indonesian Red Cross for related medical services. In addition to that, the Prime Minister has announced a comprehensive package of assistance to the victims. The government will pay the return to Australia of the remains of Australians killed. The government will provide financial assistance to Australian families and friends of victims who have incurred additional costs by staying on in Bali, including up to seven days accommodation. Family members who have travelled to Bali to seek out relatives will have the cost of their air fares and accommodation for up to seven days met by the government. Details of the various forms of assistance available can be obtained from Centrelink, on its web site or on an inquiry number—136 125. The donations to the Red Cross Bali bombings appeal are tax deductible where the donation is $2 or more. I encourage those Australians who are able to support that appeal, and I thank those Australians who have assisted generously and magnificently for the response to date.823314:21:008233Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, I refer to my question to you yesterday about proposals to improve the system for disseminating travel advisories to Australians intending to travel abroad. Is the minister aware that when one of my staff contacted a travel agent in Brisbane this morning, they were told that no set rules existed in that company for alerting people of travel advisories and they have not made any plans for making people more aware of the current DFAT travel advice, and that another major travel agent in Canberra said, `Nothing has changed since 12 October in how we deal with travel advisories'? Still another agent in Melbourne said, `It is up to you. The department has issued a few general warnings but there is nothing specific so we can't say if it is or is not safe.' Is the minister aware that yet another travel agent in Sydney said, `You can go online. I don't know the address, but you can get the information; it's up to you to read it for yourself.' Minister, could you please advise the House what action you have now taken to change the system for the dissemination of travel advisories that continues to operate in the Australian travel industry as of today?8233Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. As I explained to the House yesterday, last week I instructed my department to examine ways where we could improve dissemination of the travel advisories. They have not completed that investigation, but the examples given by the honourable member, frankly, confirm my own anecdotal evidence that, although travel advisories are believed to be sent to travel agents, I am pretty sure that travel agents typically would not show the travel advisories to people as they purchase tickets. It raises the question of whether it would even be feasible to make it mandatory for travel agents to give travel advisories to people. That is obviously something we are having a look at, but, to the extent that we might legislate to do so, that is, of course, a very large step forward.We need to carefully examine all the options available, bearing in mind that many people do not use travel agents. I am sure the Minister for Small Business and Tourism would be able to tell us what percentage of people use travel agents when they travel abroad. Clearly, whatever the answer to that question, it is not 100 per cent. As I said yesterday, one of the ideas that, on the face of it, appeals to me—although more work needs to be done on this—is to make travel advisories available either electronically or in paper form at international terminals. Some people say that the trouble with that is that by the time people get into the terminal ipso facto they have bought their ticket and are on their way; they are hardly likely to turn back. While I accept that point, the fact that they have with them the information and they understand the risks should ensure that there is a heightened degree of security taken by those people.The honourable member's question does draw attention, quite rightly in my view, to weaknesses in dissemination of travel advisories and, as I said, it is important that we get it right. Since 12 October, obviously, travel advisories are getting an enormous amount of publicity as we change them. Never have travel advisories, except in the period immediately after 11 September 2001, got as much publicity. Inevitably, as time goes on, that level of publicity will decline. In those circumstances, we need to make sure that these are appropriately drawn to the attention of travellers, and much better than is the case at the moment.823414:25:008234Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What steps are now being taken to build further cooperation with our partners in our attack on terrorism?8234Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question. I think all of us in this House would agree that the terrorist threat is the greatest challenge that we face as a nation. It is international in scope and is indiscriminate in its application towards victims. We are targets of terrorism for what we stand for, as are other Western countries. Our values and freedoms, nevertheless, are non-negotiable and we will defend them with unrelenting vigour. But the struggle against terrorism cannot be conducted in the way a traditional conflict is fought. Terrorism's global reach—its transnational nature—requires that we work with our regional partners and our allies in a closely coordinated and cooperative way. The government is pursuing this and pursuing the challenge of meeting the terrorist threat at a number of levels and in a number of ways. First of all, it is clearly important that work continues to place restrictions on the financing of terrorist activities. There are United Nations resolutions and conventions, and there have been a range of different initiatives to try to ensure that individual countries take decisive action against the financing of terrorism. With Indonesia, the Australian government will be co-hosting a regional conference to combat terrorism financing and money laundering in Indonesia in December. That conference will be jointly opened by Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda and by me on behalf of Australia. The second thing I would mention is that to fight terrorism it is very important to enhance the cooperation between intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies in our respective countries. We have traditional relationships with a number of intelligence agencies, but in recent times the government has been promoting and getting signed memoranda of understanding on counter-terrorism which provide for cooperation between intelligence agencies, with Indonesia, as is well known, and also more recently with Malaysia and Thailand. We are also talking to the Philippines about concluding a similar memorandum of understanding, and the Philippines experience of terrorism is well known to all in this House.Thirdly, we have to keep working with our regional partners and with other countries to develop domestic legislative frameworks to counter terrorism. This was a particular focus of a regional technical workshop we co-hosted for Pacific island countries in Honolulu in March this year—some time ago. I make the point that to deal with the problem of terrorism each country has to have effective laws which protect civil liberties and human rights and, at the same time, effective laws that are able to deal with the crime of terrorism and the operation of terrorist organisations. The fourth point I would make is that there need to be effective border controls in order to regulate the flow of people into and out of countries. That was a feature of a regional workshop we co-hosted in Bangkok in April this year for ASEAN Regional Forum countries.Earlier in question time, the Prime Minister talked about APEC. As is clear, it is very important that the upcoming APEC meeting in Los Cabos is effective in building on APEC's already existing initiatives to deal with the problem of terrorism. The government also thinks that terrorist organisations need to be effectively targeted through the United Nations system. The Prime Minister said last week that Australia would be promoting the listing with the United Nations of Jemaah Islamiah as a terrorist organisation, drawing attention to the fact that Jemaah Islamiah, a South-East Asian terrorist organisation, has direct links with al-Qaeda. Since the Prime Minister spoke of this, we have had extensive discussions with our regional partners and other countries about this. Our expectation is that we will be co-sponsoring with a number of other countries the listing of Jemaah Islamiah in the United Nations over the next few days.Finally, it is well known that the close cooperation between Australia and the United States is fundamentally important to our capacity to continue effectively the fight against terrorism. The alliance with the United States is crucial to the efficacy of our efforts in the fight against terrorism and is deeply beneficial to the overall international effort to fight terrorism. Next week Senator Hill, the Minister for Defence, and I will both be in Washington for the annual Australia-US ministerial talks—what are known as AUSMIN. We will meet with Secretary Powell and Secretary Rumsfeld. Clearly, a very substantial component of our discussions with the Americans next week is to look at what more we can do to counter the terrorist threat in South-East Asia and through other parts of the world. Terrorism is not just a regional problem, not just a problem for the Middle East and not just a problem for South-East Asia. This is a global problem and it requires a global response. Our cooperation with our allies such as the United States and working with other countries in the region are going to be central to our capacity to deal with this. Let me just acknowledge the presence in the House of members of a British parliamentary committee on intelligence who are visiting Australia. I take the opportunity of saying how we very much appreciate the close intelligence cooperation with the British government in the fight against terrorism.Distinguished Visitors823514:31:008235SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I use the opportunity given by the minister's concluding remarks to extend a welcome to the members of the United Kingdom Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee led by the Rt Hon. Ann Taylor. Accompanying the committee is His Excellency Sir Alastair Goodlad, the British High Commissioner. In extending a welcome to each of the committee members, I also notice in the gallery the Sri Lankan High Commissioner, Major-General Janaka Perera. On behalf of all members of the House, I extend to both our United Kingdom guests and to the Sri Lankan High Commissioner a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice8235823514:32:008235Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer rule out providing tax deductions to companies for share options issued to executives?8235Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I have told the House on a number of occasions, the government believes that the expensing of share options should follow the release of the IASB standard, which we expect to be adopted by Australia as soon as it is issued. If there is under that standard a legitimate expense, then it would give rise to a deduction. If there were not a legitimate expense as against the company, then there would not be a deduction. The position of the government is that it will consider carefully the tax treatment in the light of the application of the standard in accordance with those principles. It will announce its position once that standard has been issued.823614:33:008236Farmer, Patrick, MPMr FARMER00AMOMacarthurLP10—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the progress of the sustainable regions initiative and what benefits is it producing to rural and regional Australia?8236Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I must say that he has shown an enormous interest in the Campbelltown and Camden sustainable regions area. He has almost worn out the carpet in my office coming in highlighting the need for good programs to be supported against the backdrop of a really sustainable vision for a stronger future, particularly for employment. He cares about jobs in his area.There are eight prototype regions: the Atherton Tablelands; Campbelltown and Camden, as I have just touched on; the far north-east of New South Wales; the Gippsland in Victoria; the Kimberly in Western Australia, right up in the north-west; the north-west and west coast of Tasmania, a particularly hard-hit area; the Playford-Salisbury area in South Australia; and the Wide Bay Burnett in Queensland. Funding has been provided to each of these regions to assist identifying further strategic opportunities for building a stronger investment and employment base and, in particular, stronger futures for young people in those regions— all of which have been assessed as, if you like, not sharing in the nation's improved prosperity and better economic outlooks.These programs are community driven and community owned. Local advisory committees have been involved in the process of setting strategic options and they have identified job creation, education and training at all levels, community development and value adding, both existing and to new proposed businesses, as being very important in each of their areas. I am meeting with the chairs and the executive officers of the advisory committees at dinner tonight and tomorrow morning. They are here for a two-day strategic planning meeting hosted by my department. Certainly there are quite a significant number of projects now coming forward. For example, in the Atherton Tablelands, a hard-hit area in North Queensland, we are seeing concrete proposals for the development of agriculture, industry and tourism and the building on existing infrastructure and such industries as a sustainable sweet corn industry and the opportunity to participate in untapped timber export markets in Asia. In Tasmania, we are now seeing an investment plan being brought forward for the north-west and west coast of Tasmania. The community down there, recognising nominal funding over four years of up to $12 million from the Commonwealth, has set itself the objective of multiplying that threefold in attracting new investment in jobs in that region. The Tasmanian Advocate editorialised yesterday that the launch of the process comes at the perfect time. The article goes on to say that, despite the very real difficulties the area has faced:There is a positive feel about the region at present, but the gains being felt need to be supported and enhanced, and this program provides the perfect opportunity for that to be achieved.I think the coming months will see significant benefits flowing from the government's approach in assisting regions to lead their own development as more projects are rolled out in each region. Our objective is clear: it is to ensure that Australians living in areas that have experienced real adjustment shock, and where both investment indicators and employment indicators reflect disadvantage, are able to enjoy and take part in the increased prosperity that has unquestionably been a feature of the national economic outlook under the management of this government.823714:38:008237McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Treasurer, and it follows his answer to the question from the member for Kingston. Is the Treasurer aware that, in its most recent survey of executive remuneration, the Australian Financial Review found that the gross value of options held by chief executives and executive chairmen of the top 150 companies was more than $1 billion in total or an average of $10.5 million for each executive? Treasurer, why are you even contemplating giving tax benefits to such grotesquely excessive benefits?8237Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I have informed the House on a number of occasions, and as I understood it, it was the Labor Party's point of view that executive share options to be expensed in company accounts require an accounting standard which sets out the methodology. As I understood it, the Australian Labor Party, like the government, believed that the expensing of share options should be done and that therefore the accounting standard under which it is to be done should be promulgated to enable those companies to comply with it. The accounting standard is being considered by the International Accounting Standards Board. We have a state-of-the-art corporate governance model in this country which allows the automatic adoption of IASB standards, subject only to disallowance—that is, the AASB can adopt an IASB standard and it becomes law, subject to disallowance.The point I made earlier was that, if that IASB requires it to be treated as an expense, the argument will be that the company, having incurred an expense under normal taxation law which allows a deduction for expenses, should be entitled to a deduction. That will be the argument. What we have said is that we will not give a ruling in advance of that accounting standard because we do not know the form which the accounting standard will take. It may well be that the ordinary law will cut in. It may well be that it will be argued that the ordinary law does not apply to the standard as it is promulgated. What I said in answer to the last question was that the government's position—an eminently reasonable position, and I can think of no other—is that, once the standard has been made, once the expensing methodology is set out, once you determine whether or not it is a bona fide expense, if the question then arises as to the tax treatment of that, the government will consider it. I would have thought that an eminently reasonable position, and no other position could be entered into in advance of the issue of that particular standard.823714:41:008237Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Has the minister had the opportunity to consider the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training report on the inquiry into boys' education? What is the minister's initial response?8237Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—Firstly, on indulgence, as the federal minister for education and on behalf of the Australian education community, I express our condolences to the families of the two students who were killed at Monash University yesterday and the families of those students who were injured. I also express our admiration for those who stopped this from being a greater disaster than it was and our congratulations to the staff for the way in which they handled this incident.I thank the member for Macquarie for his question and also for his chairmanship of the House of Representatives inquiry into the education of boys. He was strongly supported in that regard by the member for Port Adelaide and the members of the committee who served across two parliaments. There are four key themes that need to be examined in relation to the education of our boys. Firstly, there are biological differences which are obvious between boys and girls, but boys learn in different ways from girls. Secondly, there are also gender biases locked into the education system. We have lived through more than a generation where there have been biases built into the education system in favour of girls—which has been appropriate. We need to examine teaching and curriculum for boys and also take into account the socioeconomic circumstances of students—and boys in particular. In fact, Dr Tim Hawkes during this inquiry made the observation that, whereas once it was considered to be a virtue, parents these days look upon the masculinity of their boys and wonder whether it is not an obstacle to be overcome.In thinking about the education of boys, there are some key issues that need to be considered by our government and indeed all governments. Boys are achieving at significantly lower levels than girls in all areas of the assessed cognitive curriculum throughout primary and secondary school. One-half of referrals to consultant paediatricians are for behavioural problems—almost all of them boys—and 20 per cent for learning problems. The Australian Council for Educational Research found in 1975 that 30 per cent of 14-year-old boys could not pass a basic literacy test; by 1995, that had increased to 35 per cent. The difference between the tertiary entrance score for boys and that for girls increased from 0.6 per cent to almost 19 per cent from 1981 to 1996 in New South Wales. Girls are exceeding boys in the higher school certificate results, or year 12 results, across the country in around 90 per cent of courses.Perhaps more disturbingly, boys are represented more than two to one in the bottom 20 per cent of school achievers. In terms of literacy benchmarks for which we are now measuring the performance of boys and girls throughout Australia—thanks largely to the efforts of the member for Goldstein—we know that boys are achieving at around 4½ percentage points behind that of girls. Further to that, in the state of Tasmania almost one in four boys cannot pass a basic year 5 reading test, and in the state of Queensland one in five boys cannot pass a basic year 5 reading test. We also know that 80 per cent of boys comprise the suspension and expulsion rates for students at school and that boys in many coeducational schools represent 100 per cent of school disciplinary programs. To complete the scenario, boys are disproportionately represented in terms of assault, drug use, spinal cord injury; they are three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident; and our sons are six times more likely to take their own lives—obviously through suicide.This report makes a significant contribution to the Commonwealth's understanding of the education of boys as we go forward. We are already committing $1.4 billion over four years for strategic initiatives to support students who are falling behind, including boys, and $734 million was invested specifically into literacy and numeracy. Also this year, the government announced $82 million over three years to support teacher professional development and leadership—initiatives which will support teaching in literacy, numeracy, maths, science, vocational education and training.I would also like to announce that late next month I will be convening a forum to which I have invited the key contributors to the education of boys throughout this country, including Professor Michael Carr-Greg, Dr Richard Fletcher, Professor Ken Rowe and a range of those who are deeply concerned about the future of boys in this country and their education. I will also be inviting the member for Macquarie and the member for Port Adelaide, both of whom I know will make a significant contribution to this conference.The point needs to be made that, despite the derision and ridicule of the Australian Labor Party, if we produce a generation of boys who are disengaged, who are disillusioned and ill prepared for life, we will be doing a great disservice not only to them and their economic and personal development but to subsequent generations of all Australians.Miscellaneous823810000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wanted to associated herself with the earlier remarks of the Minister for Education, Science and Training, and I will give her indulgence to do so.14:47:008239Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I appreciate your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I want to join with the comments made by the Minister for Education, Science and Training in extending our condolences and our very serious concerns to both the families of the students who were killed at Monash yesterday and, of course, to those who have been injured and their families as well. I also want to recognise the very brave acts by the members of staff and students who tackled the fellow who did the shooting. It is obviously a terrible shock for the students at Monash, many of whom are about to start their exams. Of course, we are thinking of all of those people—not just the students and the staff but also the people at the Alfred Hospital who are caring for the injured.Questions Without Notice8239823914:48:008239Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—All members of the House would support those comments. My question without notice is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Minister, can you confirm to the House the assertion by the weekly publication, Environmental Manager, that Environment Australia has been directed to prepare a multibillion dollar wish list to be financed from the further sale of Telstra and explain why, if the assertion is accurate, this directive has been issued more than two weeks before the Estens inquiry into regional telecommunications has made its final report?8239Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I cannot confirm that any such directive has been given. However, the government has shown that it is prepared to make very substantial contributions to the environment from its consolidated revenue. It has put into place major programs to address the issues of salinity and water quality in this country and has allocated an additional $1 billion from consolidated revenue to the Natural Heritage Trust. I believe that those two major programs show that this government is committed, as no previous government has been, to ensure that the Australian environment and the continent are put on a sustainable basis.823914:50:008239Panopoulos, Sophie, MPMs PANOPOULOS00AMUIndiLP10—My question is to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Can the minister inform the House what the government is doing for young people in rural and regional areas?8239Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I thank the member for Indi for her question. I was recently in her electorate and was very impressed with Delatite Shire Council. It was through her lobbying efforts that they were able to secure $130,000 for an innovative, collaborative youth service and pilot project, which is directly related to trying to help young people in the area of education and training. The coalition government has a very sound record on increasing the education, abilities and the standard of living for young people no matter where they live but particularly for those in remote and regional parts of Australia.Indeed, I must compliment the Treasurer in regard to yesterday's AAA rating of Australia's economic performance. It demonstrates that there is a sound economic underpinning, no matter where you live in Australia, ensuring strong economic growth, strong employment, low interest rates and greater job opportunities. This is especially so through the areas of the family tax benefit and the child-care benefit which have advantaged many Australians.When it comes to rural and regional areas, I was happy to recently announce some programs for young people at risk. In the area of risk, $950,000 recently went to a reconnect program. That is again to tackle youth homelessness. In the member for Lingiari's electorate $800,000 went recently to a service to help the homeless. Another example was in the electorate of the member for Cowper, who is doing a terrific job there. Again, $170,000 went to employment, education and training programs there. In the member for O'Connor's electorate there was also the recent amount of $450,000 for employment, education and training services.But when it comes to improving the tyranny of distance and when it comes to educational opportunities for young Australians, the one area where there has been improvement is certainly in youth allowance. Since the introduction of youth allowance, there are more people than ever before undertaking either part-time study or full-time study, particularly from regional parts of Australia. Indeed, what we introduced with rent assistance gave many people—no matter where they live in Australia, but particularly in rural areas—the opportunity to go away to further study. Fare allowance, remote area allowance and the higher living away from home rate for youth allowance have made study far more possible. Indeed, the changes that we made when it came to the assets test for those from farms or from rural businesses where we are up to a 75 per cent threshold, have meant that many people from rural Australia, where their parents may be asset rich and income poor—and that is the case now with the drought that is affecting so many communities—have the ability to go away to further study.I would also like to compliment the Deputy Prime Minister, who recently launched a booklet which I thought was important—the Commonwealth information booklet. We are again providing greater resources to young people where they can access it. I thank the minister for agriculture as well, who is behind me over here and who is providing a number of rural scholarships and the Young Australian Rural Network. I also thank the Minister for Education, Science and Training, who has been terrific in following on from his predecessor when it comes to the increased level of apprenticeships and traineeships and also to vocational education and training. I also mention the Minister for Science and many members on this side of parliament deserve thanks.But I think it would be remiss of me not to mention, as this is Carers Week—and I think the opposition should respond to this as well—the fact that we have over 390,000 carers under the age of 26 looking after someone, 19,000 of whom are principal carers. There are many young carers. We have actually 2,900 under the age of 15 and many of those are in rural and remote communities. I think we should take our hats off to those individuals, particularly those young Australians, who are caring for others in their community.824014:55:008240O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00— My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall my question to him yesterday about his call in January this year for a national summit on firefighting? Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall responding yesterday: ... I do not think I made any commitment to a summit.Minister, is it not the case that on 12 January 2002 the Canberra Times, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Weekend Australian all reported you as committing to a national summit on firefighting? In view of the recent bushfires in New South Wales and Queensland and dire predictions of a very difficult fire season this summer, when will you convene this summit that you promised?8240Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I said it when he asked it yesterday and I was intending to add to it at the conclusion of question time today: I have checked the media reportage and transcripts and everything that we have been able to find in my office—and we are not without resources—to see what I said at the time. I have done that. The only direct transcript was from AAP, which quoted me directly as saying:We're prepared to co-ordinate a national overviewing of the best way to handle the matter of aerial firefighting. If that's a useful way forward for the states without crossing the boundaries of responsibilities, we're prepared to help in that way if it can produce better outcomes.It is true that at least one media report interpreted that as me calling for a summit but those are the actual words that I said.We delivered on that. We have sought to cooperate with the states. I have to say that I made no reference to a summit. I can find no reference to my having referred to calling a summit. I am not quite certain that this is a terribly profound matter to be pursuing in this place. We have plainly recognised the importance of fighting fires. We have plainly been prepared to cooperate. I announced at that time that we would help with the importation of a couple of these giant helitankers. The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government has worked through this matter. The government has considered its response. We are helping out with heavy lift helicopters this year.I have to say to you that the most important thing that anyone in the ALP could do when it comes to managing fire risk in New South Wales would be to talk to the government of that state about how it manages fuel loads, given the massive increase in national parks that it has presided over without a commensurate increase in the staffing and resources required to look after them.824114:58:008241Ciobo, Steven, MPMr CIOBO00AN0MoncrieffLP10—My question is to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Would the minister inform the House of how the federal government is helping small business get on with business? Are there any online services that small businesses can use to improve access to important government services?8241Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I thank the member for Moncrieff for his question. In his electorate on the Gold Coast, he has a large number of small businesses—particularly those involved in tourism have been handling recent events very well.The government are helping small business get on with their business. As the House is well aware, we have reduced company tax to 30 per cent, abolished financial institutions duty, reduced excise taxes, reduced personal income tax, abolished provisional tax and halved capital gains tax. That all helps to support Australia's 1.2 million small businesses. It also encourages them to employ more Australians.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—You forgot the GST.DK6Mr HOCKEY—I note the interjection about the GST. I remind the House that, in the 12 months after the introduction of the GST, 44,000 new small businesses were started up. It has helped business get on with the business of making money.In 1997, in response to the views of small business, the Australian government set up the Business Entry Point. This is a one-stop shop web site for Australia's businesses to be able to access information and services provided by all governments—local, state and federal. Business want to have a means of cutting through red tape. They do not care whether it is federal government, state government or local government; they want answers and they want results. This web site has been very successful. It receives 160,000 visits per month, it has over one million look-ups per month and it is the fifth most popular national government site in the country. Business can access over 2,000 transactions at a local, state and federal level.I spoke with a large number of small businesses around Australia, and they gave me some feedback that the site should be improved to be made more friendly, particularly to a range of small businesses. I asked the public servants involved with the Business Entry Point to go out and consult with some of these businesses and ask them what they wanted. I gave them some particular names; one name was Joe and Sam Antico's fruit shop in Northbridge. I suggested to the public servants that, if people like Joe and Sam Antico were satisfied with the useability of the site, then the site would be a whole lot more accessible and easier to use for a whole lot of different small businesses.I am pleased to inform the House that next week we will be launching the new Business Entry Point at Joe and Sam Antico's fruit shop in Northbridge. The new site is faster to use, is quicker to download—particularly for regional and remote users—allows businesses to discover and carry out transactions with all levels of government in an improved way and, most importantly, is about helping particularly small businesses to cut through the red tape. The web site, at business.gov.au, should be more accessible and easier to use and will help to reduce some of the administrative burden facing small business.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Before I recognise the member for Hunter, I had offered the call to the member for Corio.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—I seek leave to table three articles: one from the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 12 January 2002 where the Acting Prime Minister called for a federal-state summit—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Corio will indicate which of the three articles.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—one from the Weekend Australian, Saturday, 12 January 2002; and one from the Canberra Times, Saturday, 12 January 2002.Leave not granted.824215:03:008242Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I refer him to his promise of 9 September 2002 that interim exceptional circumstances welfare assistance would be `immediately available' to farmers in Bourke and Brewarrina. I further refer him to his media release of 9 October, which states that:Interim Commonwealth Exceptional Circumstances Welfare Relief Payments (ECRP) will begin flowing tomorrow to drought-affected farmers in the Bourke and Brewarrina areas ...Minister, can you inform the House how many people have received payments to date?8242Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I am happy to provide some up-to-date information to the honourable member in relation to the number of applications and recipients of benefits to date. As the government announced at the time that we indicated we were speeding up the arrangements associated with the payment of welfare benefits, those payments will be processed once applications are received and backdated to the date of the announcement. That is common practice. We normally make that kind of arrangement, and then the payments are backdated from the time of acceptance to the date of announcement.My understanding is that, as of this morning, 113 application forms have been distributed by Centrelink's call centre—83 direct to farmers and 30 to rural financial counsellors for distribution. The New South Wales Rural Adjustment Authority has processed 47 requests for the certificate that is required in relation to residential eligibility, 38 of which were successful. Six claims have been received by Centrelink, and three of those have been approved. I understand payments will be made tomorrow for all of those, backdated to 19 September. The applications are being considered as they are being received.Centrelink is calling each of the people, and has been for some time now, who have received the certificate from the New South Wales Rural Adjustment Authority to check whether they need some assistance with completion of the forms. Some of the applicants have indicated they are awaiting rural financial counsellors' assistance to achieve that objective. The payment of benefits is flowing, as indicated by the government, and we would expect that more applications will be processed promptly.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPGT4Mr TRUSS—I am reminded by the interjection of the member behind me that that compares with the situation in New South Wales, where, once an area is declared by the New South Wales government, everyone has to wait six months before they are even eligible to apply for any assistance. There is a degree of hypocrisy in the criticism coming from members opposite.824315:06:008243Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister please advise the House of how the federal government's Farm Management Deposit scheme can assist farmers during the current drought?8243Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The honourable member for Page has drawn attention to a way in which farmers are able to help themselves through difficult times. For years farmers have been calling for tax based assistance to help them to drought-proof their properties or to prepare for circumstances where they need special assistance to see them through. The Farm Management Deposit Scheme has been an excellent example of such a scheme actually working. As I reported to the House a week or so ago, more than $2 billion of farmers' money has now been deposited in this scheme. The scheme offers tax benefits by allowing the money to be deposited free of tax in the deposit scheme, and then it is withdrawn at a time generally when a farmer's income is very low; so effectively he pays little or no tax. Around 43,000 Australian farmers now have FMDs—that is close to a third of all the farmers in the nation—and the average deposit is $48,000. The grain industry, for instance, has over half a billion dollars worth of investments in the Farm Management Deposit Scheme. Victoria has the largest number of FMD holders. They overtook both New South Wales and Queensland in the last quarter. New South Wales still has the highest value of deposits, with $547 million invested. There are 27 financial institutions receiving farm management deposits and offering products that farmers can use for this service. That is one of the significant changes that was made by the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was minister for agriculture, that revolutionised the FMD scheme and made it such an effective saving tool for farmers. The money no longer has to be given to the government. Farmers can place it with the financial institution of their choice and earn interest in the normal way.This scheme has been very helpful. Around $1 billion of that money is available now to farmers, if they choose to withdraw it, to help them through the difficult seasonal conditions which seem to be confronting our nation at the present time. That is an excellent example of many Australian farmers being in a position to help themselves. I know that there are others who have not had an opportunity to contribute because, for one reason or another, they have not enjoyed good seasons or good prices in the last couple of years. For farmers facing special needs, there are a range of other assistance programs, such as exceptional circumstances and the like, which will provide support for them. The Farm Management Deposit Scheme is an excellent example of a government responding to an industry's desire to help itself, and this product has certainly worked very well for the industry. 824315:10:008243Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it is in relation to drought assistance. I refer him to his comments of 6 September, when he invited the states to `put the applications for funding in and I will consider them immediately.' Prime Minister, isn't it the case that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry yesterday admitted that the national rural advisory committee are still preparing their report to government and have only just made a preliminary visit to Queensland? Prime Minister, given that it has been six weeks since the New South Wales government lodged an application for drought assistance, how much longer will the communities of Brewarrina and Bourke have to wait?8244Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As far as my understanding of the situation is concerned, there have not been any applications from Queensland.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I said Brewarrina—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Hang on; you mentioned Queensland and then you said `Brewarrina and Bourke'. I will deal with Queensland first. My understanding is that there have not been any applications from Queensland. The way this system operates, as I understand it, is that the applications are put in by the state governments. That is how they work. Until there is an application from Queensland, and until the Queensland government puts in an application, I do not think you can blame the federal government for dragging the chain. I am not blaming the state government, either. For heaven's sake, in case it has not occurred to the opposition, this is not an issue where the public wants state and federal governments slagging off at each other. WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—Why don't you tell your ministers that? 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Corio!ZD4Mr HOWARD—They are fed up with that. They are fed up to the back teeth with that kind of thing happening on so many issues. WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—You hypocrite!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Corio will withdraw that remark.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, withdraw it. I did not hear it, but—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—The remark was that you should tell your ministers—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Corio will withdraw the remark that I heard him make.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—I withdraw the remark.ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is the position in relation to Queensland and, just as soon as we get an application from Queensland, of course that will be considered as expeditiously as possible. As far as Brewarrina and Bourke are concerned, the minister just explained the situation there, and I thought he gave a good explanation; didn't you?Government members—Yes!824415:13:008244Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Minister, what outcomes are parents looking for in the education of their children? Minister, on what basis do you derive this information?8244Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for Paterson for his question and for his very strong advocacy, on behalf of Australian parents, of the school education that children receive. The government are very committed to doing everything we can to see that Australian students are able to find and be their best, not only in conventional education but also in vocational education and training and apprenticeships, and to see university as part of their life's horizon. Parents are increasingly concerned about a number of things. They want to know who is teaching their children; they are interested in the qualities of the teachers who are teaching their children; they want to know that their children are able to read, write, count and communicate when they leave school; and increasingly parents are looking for education to be delivered within a values based framework with which they feel particularly comfortable. It is rather interesting that, when I had the privilege to visit the electorate of Paterson and meet the member and about 20 principals from his electorate, one of the principals asked why there are, increasingly, parents who are more interested in these issues. The principal of the Medowie Christian School said to the group—and I think this is a very important issue that ought to be raised here—`Minister, I've got parents coming to me every single day and they are looking for three things out of education which I believe that your government's policies are delivering.' She said that the first thing they are looking for is values. They are looking for a school which teaches children about basic values which parents think are important. The second thing that they are looking for is identity. They are looking for schools which give their child a sense of identity. They want to be in a school where they feel their child is understood and known as a human being in a school community. And the third thing is that they are looking for discipline. Parents are increasingly interested in schools that are able to deliver uniforms, that are able to deliver diaries, that are able to reinforce the fundamentals that are critically important to education. It is rather interesting that the Victorian government has recently announced that finally it will be measuring year 7 literacy and numeracy benchmarks and reporting them against all national benchmarks. We will now have four states—Western Australia, Northern Territory, ACT and Victoria—that will be reporting literacy against national benchmarks. I will be very interested to see whether the currently Crean-led Australian Labor Party will be calling on the other jurisdictions to also report against national benchmarking. I thank the member for Paterson for his question.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Without notice?RW5Dr NELSON—Without notice, definitely. And especially I thank all members on this side for their commitment to values, identity and discipline in education.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice8245824517:17:008245Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister may proceed.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—At the beginning of question time, the member for Cowan asked me a question about travel arrangements for relatives of apparently deceased Australians coming to the memorial service on Thursday. I have been informed that before question time—indeed, as early as last Friday—approaches were made by my department to the airlines to establish whether there would be any difficulties regarding ticket availability and also cost. They were informed that there would be none. All carriers were contacted. As a result of the question raised by the member, my department is again contacting the carriers to see if there is a difficulty. Could I ask the honourable gentleman, if he is aware of specific cases, to let my office know and we will see what we can do about it. My information is that as early as last Friday contact was made with the airlines in anticipation that there might be a difficulty, and we were told, on the basis of that inquiry, that there would be none.824617:18:008246Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLP10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to another answer.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister may proceed.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Later in question time, the member for Werriwa asked me a question. He based the question, relating to firearms, on an interview I gave to Philip Clark on Radio 2GB on 17 April 2002.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—No, it was the Leader of the Opposition who asked that question.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I am mistaking the two of you, I am sorry. The Leader of the Opposition correctly quoted me as saying on 17 April that we would make contact with the states to see if there were further ways to tighten hand gun laws. Mr Speaker, I inform you that on that very day, 17 April, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison, wrote to each of the state ministers responsible for police, proposing a national firearms trafficking policy agreement. He released a press statement the following day itemising the elements of that policy. That statement was released on 18 April 2002. That agreement was endorsed by the Australasian Police Ministers Conference. Following a meeting of the police commissioners in Darwin in May 2002, a full APMC meeting was held in July 2002. The National Firearms Trafficking Policy Agreement deals with a range of matters, including the following matters:· a commitment by the Commonwealth, States and Territories to ensure that substantial penalties are in place for the illegal possession of a handgun; · the introduction of consistent regulation of firearms manufacturing; · the introduction of serious offences for the illegal manufacture of firearms; · increased recording, reporting and inspection of firearm part transactions; and · the introduction of laws designed to restrict the illegal supply of firearms, and making it an offence to conspire to commit an interstate firearm offence. Inspection rates of air cargo increased by up to 70 per cent to further improve the detection of prohibited imports such as illegal hand guns. The federal Minister for Justice and Customs has also announced that the new Australian Crime Commission will address the issue of hand guns as its first priority, and that has been agreed by the states. A new Commonwealth offence against illegal interstate trafficking in firearms was announced in August, and the legislation is to be introduced shortly. The federal minister for justice has also asked states and territories to do more to ensure compliance with safe storage requirements in the face of AIC reports—and this is something that is the responsibility of the states, because that is where the firearms are stored—that 4,000 firearms are stolen in Australia every year and approximately 80 per cent of those are from residential premises. A wide range of other issues in relation to firearm and hand gun regulations are the subject of ongoing discussions between the Firearms Policy Working Group, reporting to the Australasian Police Ministers Council. The next meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers Council will be held on 5 and 6 November this year in Darwin. I can confirm to the House that we have indeed been very busy since 17 April. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I understand that it is not appropriate that there be further questions, but I will hear the member for Cowan.15:22:008246Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00— On indulgence, I thank the Prime Minister for adding to that answer. My concern was simply that, in speaking to a number of families last night, they had not been made aware of any arrangements. Further, on checking this morning, they had just been contacted this morning by the people responsible for the arrangements. It is often difficult to get a plane from WA and from other outlying parts of Australia, and it was for that reason that I wanted to bring that matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. I thank him for his further answer and for the offer to contact his office should problems remain.824715:23:008247Downer, Alexander, 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.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—Last week the honourable member for Griffith asked the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs to table travel advisories from a number of countries in relation to Indonesia. I tabled on Monday the travel advisories of the United States and I now table the travel advisories of the United Kingdom for Indonesia from 5 September 2001 to 15 October 2002 and the travel advisories of Canada for approximately the same period, 12 September 2001 to 15 October 2002—nicely bound. I table those travel advisories.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—That gave you something to do last night!4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—I was photocopying all night! No, I was watching Lateline.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Did you learn something?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I remind the House of the courtesies that are expected to be extended to any occupier of the chair when the chair is on its feet. It is fundamental to the management of the House.Miscellaneous824715:24:008247SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I advise the House that I have received further condolence messages following the terrorist bombings in Bali. They are from the President and members of the House of Representatives of Spain, the Ambassador of Spain, the Ambassador of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of Indonesia and a citizen of the United States, Mr Greg Orth. I table the messages.Questions to the Speaker8247824715:25:008247Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, I draw your attention to question on notice No. 388 on the Notice Paper. Would you draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Arts and Sport to this fact and request an answer for me?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Melbourne Ports, as standing order 150 provides.Documents8247824710000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 12 of 2002-03 entitled Performance audit—Management of the Innovation Investment Fund Program: Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources—Industry Research and Development Board.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents8247Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.26 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:Attorney-General's Department—Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—A Report on Visits to Immigration Detention Facilities by the Human Rights Commissioner 2001—section 46 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. (29 August 2002/29 August 2002)Attorney-General's Department—Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (Austrac)—Annual Report 2001-02—section 63 of the Public Service Act 1999. (22 August 2002/23 August 2002)Attorney-General's Department—CrimTrac— Annual Report 2001-02—section 70 of the Public Service Act 1999. (23 September 2002/23 September 2002)Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Land and Water Australia—Annual Report 2001-02—section 9 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. (15 October 2002/15 October 2002)Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Australian Fisheries Management Authority—Annual Report 2001-2002—section 9 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. (15 October 2002/15 October 2002)Department of Defence—Defence Housing Authority—Annual Report 2001-2002—section 43 of the Defence Housing Act 1987. (10 October 2002/15 October 2002)Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Export Finance and Insurance Corporation—Annual Report 2002—section 9 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. (9 October 2002/14 October 2002)Australian Trade Commission—Australian Trade Commission (Austrade)—Annual Report 2001-2002—section 89 of the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985. (26 September 2002/26 September 2002)Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office— Annual Report 2001-2002—section 51 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987, and section 96 of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994. (14 October 2002/14 October 2002)Department of Employment and Workplace Relations—Australian Industrial Relations Commission/Australian Industrial Registry—Annual Report 2001-2002—section 49 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and subsection 66(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. (4 October 2002/4 October 2002)Department of Defence—Australian Strategic Policy Institute—Annual Report 2001-2002— section 34C(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (15 October 2002/15 October 2002)Department of Environment and Heritage—Australian Greenhouse Office—Annual Report 2001-2002—section 70(2) of the Public Service Act 1999. (26 September 2002/27 September 2002)Centrelink—Annual Report 2001-02—section 40(2) of the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Act 1997. (16 October 2002/17 October 2002)Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance8248824810000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Canberra proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The valuable contribution that Australia's 2.3 million carers make to the community by looking after those with a disability, mental illness, chronic condition or the frail and aged.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—15:27:008248Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I am very pleased to open the debate on this matter of public importance on the valuable contribution that Australia's 2.3 million carers make to the community by looking after those with a disability, mental illness or chronic condition, or those who are frail and aged. Caring for people with disabilities and the sick and the frail is one of the most essential tasks undertaken by millions of Australian every day. The `unsung hero' tag might be clichéd in most circumstances, but when it comes to carers that tag is absolutely justified. This week is national Carers Week, and it gives us a particularly good opportunity to give some well-deserved recognition to carers, who devote so much of their time and energy to family members and to friends.There are more than 2.3 million carers in Australia. In fact, there could be many more than 2.3 million, given that many carers remain hidden from view. This is particularly the case with young carers. It is astonishing to learn that 17 per cent of carers in Australia are under the age of 26—that is 380,000 young Australians whose freedom and opportunities in life are curtailed by the larger responsibility of caring for a parent or another family member. We also need to keep in mind people who are carers who do not actually see themselves as carers; in many cases their role does not register in the community's mind.Carers make an extraordinary contribution. They save governments around $16 billion each year. Compare that with the $80 million in new funding over four years that the Howard government announced in this year's budget and you will understand what a good deal the government is actually getting. But the work performed by carers cannot be valued in monetary terms alone. The army of carers across Australia allows people to remain in their own communities, often within their own homes, despite their frailty or their high care needs or the circumstances of the family unit. Carers deserve a huge vote of thanks, but Labor wants to use this week to remind all Australians and the government in particular that thanking carers is not enough.Carers need access to a range of reliable, high-quality support services for themselves and for the person in their care. Unfortunately, the situation for carers I believe has only worsened during the six years of the current government. If we look at the situation of people with disabilities, there is no doubt about the scale of the problem. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released a report recently on unmet demand for disability services. The report found that, in 2001, 12,500 people with disabilities could not get accommodation or respite services; community access services were running short by 8,200 places; and 5,400 people with disabilities could not get any support to find a job.Once you understand the scale of the problem, it is impossible not to be shocked by the Howard government's performance in current negotiations on the new Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement. The CSTDA is a vitally important agreement. It will have a critical impact on people with disabilities and their families and carers. That is why so many carers and supporters of people with disabilities are mobilising to tell the Howard government why they are so concerned about their performance in this area. We received a letter only a few weeks ago from the Unmet Needs Campaign Committee, which represents a number of very well respected, dedicated organisations, including Carers Australia, the Autism Council of Australia, the National Council on Intellectual Disability, the Australian Cerebral Palsy Association, the Disability Council of Queensland and many other Queensland based organisations. The people running the Unmet Needs Campaign put things into their proper perspective. They have examined current Commonwealth, state and territory spending on disability services and they say this:What is clear from these statistics is that the States are bearing the majority of the costs for the CSTDA. Whether this is right, fair or reasonable is a matter for Governments to sort out. However, it is clear that more needs to be done and the onus would seem to be on the Commonwealth to lift its funding contribution.The Unmet Needs Campaign also points out that:... in the lead up to the new CSTDA, there appears to be no specific commitment from the Commonwealth to even discuss, let alone fund, unmet demand—despite the latest research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.What that report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows is that, in order to address the backlog of unmet need for disability services, governments in Australia need to spend more than $400 million per annum. The CEO of ACROD, Dr Ken Baker, actually puts the figure close to $500 million per annum. So the message to the Howard government from the carers and from people with disabilities and their families and supporters is really quite simple: keep the politics out of it and make a commitment to decent funding levels for disability services in cooperation with the states and territories—because, for as long as unmet need remains at its current staggering level, the family and friends of people with disabilities will have to step into the breach. Caring for someone with high-level needs should be a matter of choice and in fact not the only option.The whole point of the CSTDA process, which Labor actually established back in the early nineties, is for the Commonwealth, state and territory governments to leave politics at the door, to sit down to negotiate in good faith and to produce a funding outcome which meets the needs of people with disabilities. I find it interesting and I in fact commend the Prime Minister for the comment he made just a few moments ago in question time when he said that people are fed up with federal, state and territory governments slagging off at each other, arguing over money and blame. Maybe he should talk to his own ministers about that as well.Just in case anyone in this chamber needs reminding, I will emphasise that the services funded by the CSTDA are not a privilege, and the people pushing for a good outcome are not making ambit claims. They simply need help to keep up with the rest of us. If we do not provide those services, then we leave these people behind. Unfortunately, the Minister for Family and Community Services has been going to extraordinary lengths to whip up conflict with the states and territories and to deflect attention from the Howard government's own responsibilities. The minister made her intentions clear when she announced earlier this year that, unless Labor supported her cuts to the disability support pension in the current parliament, she would withhold the Commonwealth's money from the new national disability agreement.I am pleased to say that that tactic failed, because we will not respond to that sort of threat. But having failed in her attempt to hold the Labor Party to ransom, the minister has now turned her attention to the state and territory governments. The minister has now spent several months making vitriolic attacks on those states and territories. She has continually refused to negotiate with her state and territory colleagues unless they provide signed letters from their premiers and chief ministers containing a detailed breakdown of their spending plans for the next five years. I do not know what you think, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do not call that negotiation. It is a stunt by the minister, and a very disappointing one at that, particularly when you consider that the Commonwealth's offer on the table and about which the minister boasts is a measly $125 million over five years, with $15 million alone being available in that first year. So the $1.2 billion funding announcement by the state and territory governments last Friday really does place the onus squarely on the minister to return to the negotiating table and finalise the new disability agreement before the deadline of 31 October. Leadership from the Commonwealth in genuine cooperation with the states and territories is essential to delivering good outcomes to people with disabilities. Unfortunately, the situation is no better for older Australians. They might have a less abrasive minister, but they still have to deal with the Howard government. This is a government which has produced a shortage of 12,321 nursing home beds. Many of those beds could be used for respite care to give carers a break and to provide more options for older people. Instead it is the carers who have to pick up that slack. The government's so-called reforms of the aged care sector in 1997 have made life horribly difficult for nursing homes and have drawn funds away from the construction of badly needed new beds. Nursing homes are also employing registered nurses just to fill in paperwork, such is the tangle of red tape in the sector. At the last count, the Minister for Ageing was overseeing six separate reviews of the Howard government's aged care reforms—six reviews only five years after the reforms were unveiled. I wonder whether those reviews will also fully disclose the extent of the damage inflicted by the Howard government on the aged care sector.Professional aged care in the home is another key issue. This requires adequate resources from government and high quality services. If people really are to remain in their own homes for good or until well into old age, then we need to get that system right. For the vast majority of Australians, the quality of care is a fundamental issue. Quality of care, access and cost determine whether people will entrust their ageing relatives to the care of others or choose to take on that role themselves. But they must have a genuine choice.What is the government doing in national Carers Week to turn around the situation of carers? At least one of its Centrelink offices—in Tasmania, I believe—is giving a free massage voucher to the carers of frail aged people. I for one am not going to knock that. It is said that, with gifts, it is often the thought that counts. But, in this case, not much thought is really evident at all. Governments have a huge impact on the lives of their citizens, especially those citizens who need extra help with day-to-day living, whether they be old, frail or living with disability or chronic illness. Mr Howard and his colleagues will continue to fail Australia's carers and their loved ones for as long as they fail to address the issues that we raise here today.I would say, in concluding, that I know all members of this House on all sides will want to pay tribute to Australia's carers and, in my case and that of my colleagues', to assure them that they are held in very high esteem; we will keep working to make life easier for them and for the people in their care, whenever and however we can. It is a pleasure to speak to this MPI on the occasion of national Carers Week. I would like to think that, when we do so again next year, the plight of carers in this country will have improved dramatically.15:39:008251Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I join with the shadow minister for ageing and seniors, the member for Canberra, in expressing our support for carers in this country. I do so particularly as this week is not only Carers Week but also a week of such tragic events in Bali and in the associated light of which I believe the contributions of carers, family and friends, and others more generally, have been seen—indeed, a heroic light. This is a time at which we must try to offer comfort, care and hope to the bereaved friends, lovers and relatives of those who were killed in that tragedy. In different ways, different individuals, in different communities across our country, will end up as carers of the Bali terrorist attack survivors. In my opinion, these unfolding stories of continual care will be as poignant as the stories of people assisting the survivors at enormous risk to themselves, because they are stories of dedication, companionship and commitment.As indicated by the previous speaker, there are some 2.3 million people involved in the informal care of children, adults and older persons with disability and with chronic and terminal conditions in this country. It is estimated that some 19 per cent of these people, almost half a million, of all carers are primary carers. They are the ones who provide the most informal assistance with personal activities to people needing help because of disability, chronic illness or ageing and, therefore, caring plays a major part in their lives. Some 70 per cent of primary carers are female, and almost 80 per cent of primary carers care for someone living in the same household. Indeed, primary carers provide care mostly for a partner, in about 43 per cent of cases; for a child in about 25 per cent of cases; and for a parent in about 21 per cent of cases.I had the opportunity last evening to meet with a number of carers here in the ACT at a special function at Government House to recognise and support carers. In recogising and supporting carers, there are two or three things which I believe are important. One is to recognise and affirm them in what they are doing. As many people said to me last night when I was moving amongst them—and I have heard this remark on other occasions— people are not necessarily looking for further assistance, although there are cases where that is obviously required; but often people who are voluntarily caring for their loved ones would like, I suppose as we would all like in relation to such efforts, to be recognised, affirmed and encouraged in what they do.Last week at the annual conference of the Incontinence Foundation of Australia, the Carer of the Year award was announced and presented to Belinda Mayne. Mrs Mayne cares for her husband, Ross, with the assistance of her young daughter, India, who incidentally is also a member of the Young Carers Association. This is just one of the many cases where people are making enormous efforts on behalf of family members. Ross, in his early sixties, suffers from Alzheimer's disease, having been diagnosed some six years ago, and requires full body care. To listen to Belinda Mayne, after she was presented with this award, talk about the great rewards she felt from the opportunity of being able to care for her husband in these circumstances was, indeed, quite moving. She said words to the effect that every day she gets something from Ross, for whom she cares in these circumstances. This is just one example, as we all know, of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of Australians doing something similar.I recall my own parents-in-law who, until he died at almost 50, cared for their disabled son at home almost right throughout their lives. I think people in these circumstances are indeed doing something heroic. The roles of such people involve managing medications, therapies and medical emergencies, and providing supervision and emotional support. Caring, in these circumstances, provides considerable satisfaction to people and it also strengthens relationships. However we know that carers also can often feel exhausted, isolated and burdened by their responsibilities.That brings us to the second thing which carers desire—and, in a sense, we all owe them—in addition to recognition, encouragement and affirmation, and that is support which is appropriate for their needs when they require it. In that regard, there is a whole range of programs which the government has in operation to provide this additional support for carers. Primarily there are direct payments that are made to carers—the carer payment and the carer allowance. There are approximately 67,000 carers currently receiving the carer payment and approximately 270,000 carers currently receiving the carer allowance. Both of these payments—the carer payment and the carer allowance—have increased in value by about 40 per cent since June 2000.In addition to these direct payments, the Commonwealth government also provides a range of other services to support carers. These provide information to carers about community services, respite, counselling and possible financial entitlements. In addition to that, funding is provided to the states through the Commonwealth, state and territory disability agreement. There has been an allocation by the minister responsible, Senator Vanstone, of $4.8 billion for the third agreement, to run from 2002 until 2007. Of this, $2.8 billion will go to the states and territories to assist them with their responsibilities. This includes an additional $125 million over five years to address unmet need.The figures quoted about disability assistance by the honourable member for Canberra are a reflection, in one regard, on the states themselves. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found in its report that there was a shortfall by the states and the territories with about 12,500 people needing accommodation and respite services. This points out quite clearly, in relation to these services which the states and territories have not funded, the concern that there should be better accountability and transparency of the state and territory administration of this program. This is something that Senator Vanstone has been calling for and continues to call for in relation to the current negotiations under this matter.In addition to that additional unmet needs funding, through my own portfolio in the 2002-03 aged care innovative pool there will be some 550 additional flexible care places made available for innovative care approaches. One of the criteria for the innovative pool places this year is in relation to disabilities and aged people with disabilities. To care for people in this situation, I announced just last week that there would be a further $3.6 million funding boost for respite services, particularly for respite services in rural and remote areas of Australia under the National Respite for Carers Program and we are calling for new applications. I remind members of the House that this additional funding is available under that program for services in their own electorate, particularly those members from rural and remote areas.In this year's budget, there was also an additional $80 million over four years provided to carers, and this comes in three major packages. The first is $20 million in additional support for carers of people with dementia, including further assistance with the cost of residential respite and expansion of the coverage of the psychogeriatric care units to provide full national coverage in this regard. The second is $30 million to provide support for ageing carers of people with disabilities, including a pilot program to establish and train a network of specialist volunteer carers, additional assistance with respite care and targeted financial assistance for costs incurred by carers in their carer role. And the third is another $30 million to provide more support for all carers, including the expansion of respite services, provision of emotional and psychological support across the caring experience and provision for assistance with carer costs.These budget measures build on an already substantial record and on growing levels of help for carers from this government. For example, the Commonwealth funding for the National Respite for Carers Program has more than quadrupled since its commencement in 1996-97. It has risen from $19 million to an estimated $88 million in this current financial year. This program provides: a national network of more than 90 Commonwealth carer respite centre outlets to help carers find the respite care they need; brokerage funds for Commonwealth carer respite centres to purchase short-term and emergency respite for carers where mainstream respite services are unable to help; a Commonwealth carer resource centre in each state and territory to provide carers with information, advice and other support; over 400 specialist respite services to assist carers, including over 100 services which target carers of people with dementia; and three projects that focus on helping carers of people with dementia.In addition, the Commonwealth government funds a range of programs which either wholly or partly also help carers. These include about one million days of residential respite care in Commonwealth subsidised age care homes worth about $78 million a year with about 45,000 respite admissions annually and the Home and Community Care package, which provides for a wide range of community services to help the frail aged, people with disabilities and their carers. In fact, this is the most popular and the most used of all aged care programs that the Commonwealth funds, in this case funds cooperatively with the states. I am informed that on any one working day there are approximately 320,000 people in receipt of Home and Community Care services, such as Meals on Wheels and modification of housing to enable people to move about more appropriately than they would have otherwise been able to. And, over the course of the year, somewhere in the order of 390,000 Australians are in receipt of Home and Community Care funding. So this is a substantial contribution to those people who are caring for others and in some cases people who are living alone and caring for themselves.There is additional support, particularly through Aged Care, for dementia, and there are increases in other programs as well. There has also been an increase in terms of the aged care assessment teams, with approximately 180,000 assessments each year, allowing progressively more people to gain the support services they need to remain in their own homes. In the 2001 aged care approvals round, there were 1,700 community aged care packages. These packages do something very important. Most people wish to stay in their own homes as long as they possibly can and, where that is appropriate, the government seeks to support that aspiration of those people. The Community Aged Care Package and the Home and Community Care program are both programs which help people to stay in their own homes. Indeed, since we came to government there has been a substantial increase in the number of community aged care packages. There are now over 26,000 of these community aged care packages delivering services to people in their own homes. In this year's budget, there is additional funding earmarked to create over the next four years another 6,000 of these places. Since the coalition government came to office in 1996, over 49,000 aged care places have been released to meet the care needs of older Australians. There are now over 170,000 operational aged care places throughout Australia. This is against a background, when we came to government, of there being a 10,000 shortfall in aged care places; a shortfall which we inherited from the previous Labor government. In May this year, I released 8,231 new aged care places to be distributed across Australia to meet the needs of older Australians, and we are on track to meet our objective of 200,000 aged care places across Australia by 2006.All in all, this is a significant contribution by the Commonwealth to the work of carers. We acknowledge, however, that carers undertake a major task and that without carers many people would not have the quality and standard of life which they enjoy. It is incumbent upon government at all levels— whether Commonwealth, state or local government—to support people in these ways. I hope what I have outlined to the House this afternoon is an indication of the way in which the Commonwealth has sought to work in partnership with organisations within the community, with agencies and with individuals carers themselves to add to the wellbeing and the welfare of these people.15:54:008254Vamvakinou, Maria, MPMs VAMVAKINOU00AMTCalwellALP00—I am very happy to be given this opportunity to speak to this matter of public importance. National Carers Week is a time when we honour, recognise and celebrate the overwhelming care and devotion that 2.3 million Australians give to their loved ones who may be disabled, mentally ill, chronically infirm or frail and aged. It is an important sign that our community as a whole not only values their gift of service but also recognises that they are extraordinary people who make enormous personal sacrifices in caring for dependent loved ones and should be treated with admiration and respect. These are, as the member for Canberra said, our unsung heroes. Every community is blessed with their care, including my own community of Calwell where we have a staggering number of people—8,379—on disability support pension, including a great number of elderly people who are living at home in the care of their families.Carers are the ones who, in addition to conducting the business of their own lives, must also tend to the needs of those who become dependent on them. A typical day in the life of a carer will involve great physical and emotional strain, their tasks often made more difficult because being a carer means around the clock duty of care. As a result, they are often forced to leave their employment in order to concentrate on the needs of a loved one. This results in inadequate earnings, so they are also the ones most likely to be socially and financially disadvantaged. In fact, 33,000 carers report that they have given up work, 61,700 report reduced income and 100,000 report difficulty meeting living expenses. They are also the ones who pick up the pieces that, more often than not, government service deliverers fail to address. Australian carers are doing it tough, but I am also inspired by their dedication and by their great sense of hope in the face of constant adversity. We are all inspired by their courage and even their sense of humour. We are inspired by their great sense of loyalty and devotion and are reminded that these are the qualities that best illustrate our humanity at work. These are the qualities that form the backbone of our community and that probably have been responsible for the coining of the phrase so often quoted:The sign of a civilised society is the manner in which it cares for its weakest and most vulnerable.It is these qualities of care and courage that have been displayed by countless Australians this week as many take on the role of carers, in some form or another, of the victims of Bali, and it is these qualities that we have come to collectively celebrate—coincidentally, also this week—as we mark National Carers Week.By acknowledging the valuable work that carers provide we give them a sense of personal worth, because we all need to be praised. Praising their efforts gives people much needed courage to carry on. Many times I have heard people say, `I can't go on. Some days I think I'm just not going to make it through the day.' Often after they have uttered these feelings—which are perfectly normal, by the way—they are overcome by guilt, and say, `But I won't abandon them into the care of someone else. I owe them that.' They also say things like, `They are my child'—or parent or spouse or sibling—`I have a responsibility to them.' In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a very dear friend of mine Pam Christoforidis, whose husband, Con, suffered a major stroke some years ago. This vibrant, active man I had known for so long was reduced to a pale imitation of his former self. Unable to recognise people and unable to move his arms or to speak, his prospects for survival were bleak, but Pam was determined that he would not only live but also walk and speak again.Pam is a fighter. When doctors advised her very strongly that she should put Con into a nursing home, her first reaction was to refuse. This was her husband; he was her responsibility and she was going to look after him. Eventually she agreed, and only because she was convinced by the very practical argument that she did not have the appropriate equipment at home that Con would require to aid his recovery. Even so, Pam had her own idea of what it means to send your loved one into the care of a nursing home: you move in with them. Naturally, this is not an administratively correct thing to do, but Pam did it. She convinced everyone that she was integral to Con's recovery. For 10 months, Pam slept on a mattress on the floor beside Con. She was there when he woke up; she was there when he went to sleep. She cared for him every minute of the day, and eventually he did regain some movement and some speech and was able to go home.Perhaps as a justification for her determination, she said to me, `He is a good man. He has been a good provider for our family and I will not let him down.' Sadly, Con passed away a few months ago; but his family did care for him, and he knew that, right till the very end. These incidents form the basis of the daily angst experienced by carers across the country and also describe their daily routines. By celebrating Carers Week we are telling all these wonderful people: `It is okay, you're doing a great job. If there's anything we can do to help then we are there for you.'I imagine that there are a lot of things that governments can do to help carers and to make their lives more comfortable. We do provide assistance, but there is always more that we can do. I would like to take this opportunity to also remind the parliament that we have not adequately discharged our obligation to Australia's 2.3 million carers and we should be mindful of that when we are setting policy agendas and prioritising budgets.I would also like to pay tribute to an organisation I have known for over a decade, known as AGAPI. `Agapi' is the Greek word for love and, as you can see, it is appropriately named. It was formed by a small group of Greek-speaking parents from the northern suburbs of Melbourne who have children with various mental and physical disabilities. They wanted to provide some respite for their families. They felt that there was a serious shortage of respite services available to meet their needs and demands, particularly in the area of ethno-specific services. Today AGAPI is a successful organisation that provides much-welcomed support and respite for Greek-speaking families across Melbourne. Their hard work, their endless fundraising and their dogged persistence in lobbying for their cause—and that included lobbying me in my capacity as a local government councillor at the time and as a political staffer with connections to state and federal governments and agencies—deserve mention and commendation in this parliament.I want to pay tribute to my constituent and dynamo extraordinaire Mrs Betty Moore, also a full-time carer and activist. For many years she has been on the management committee of Brite Industries, a supported employment provider in my electorate of Calwell. Many carers end up becoming activists as they see a need to fight for their rights and needs. This adds more burdens to their already overburdened life, but they feel an obligation to advocate on behalf of those who are not able to speak for themselves. And what a good thing that is, otherwise how else would we all be kept on the ball and in touch? Betty burst into my office one day and asked me if I realised just how much money she and other carers were saving governments. Their caring meant that less had to be spent on the cost of full-time nursing in aged care facilities and hospitals.Betty has many ideas about how we can make her life, and the lives of other carers, much easier. She is concerned about the burden of red tape, especially where Centrelink is concerned. She tells me that the payments she and others get are so small that often it is not worth the embarrassment and guilt you might feel asking for these payments in the first place. I understand that many carers become stressed because the constant reviewing of their circumstances to ensure and prove that the person they are caring for is still in need can be an undignified experience. There are many other complaints, but I am sure that we are all more than happy to hear from wonderful people like Betty Moore. I would like to say to Betty: go get them Betty, even if it means giving me and others a hard time in the process.I would like to take this opportunity to not only celebrate Carers Week but also contemplate how best we can take their concerns on board and make changes and adjustments to give them the respect and support they deserve. Let us not praise them on the one hand but make life difficult for them on the other.16:03:008256Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—From the outset, I congratulate the member for Calwell for her motion, for her genuine contribution to the recognition of carers and for the gentle reminders she provided as to how all governments can act to make the lives of carers much more dignified. I am also disappointed that the member for Canberra has used the recognition of Carers Week to distort the facts and offer political rhetoric here on such an important occasion. Yes, all carers do deserve gold: they deserve a gold purse; they deserve a gold medal. There would not be enough gold in Australia to compensate our carers. Just imagine what a world we would be living in if we did not have the tireless work of carers, who dedicate so much of their time to loving and caring for a family member or friend.Caring also has many rewards, like the many milestones in a loved one's life: the first step, the first word or the first movement of a child with cerebral palsy; or a loved one's breakthrough in the battle against cancer. However, a carer's life is also fraught with difficulty. Carers are not just parents; they can be a brother, a sister, a daughter, a grandchild. They are young people who are committed to caring for their mother, brother, sister or father. What wonderful young people they are. They are indeed an asset to our communities. In Australia there are around 388,800 young people under 26 years of age who are carers. Of those young carers, 188,000 are under 18 years of age. Furthermore, 18,800 young people are primary carers, providing the main source of unpaid, informal support for the person whom they support.Young carers rarely have a choice about fulfilling their role. They often provide care because they are the only ones available. They are most likely to be providing care to their mothers and they are often in a sole parent household. Young carers often spend most of their time thinking about the person they support or undertaking caring tasks. This can involve providing emotional support, assisting with mobility, administering medications, cooking and housework. Often they assist with more intimate tasks such as bathing and dressing, which can be inappropriate in the relationship because of the age of the children.Young carers' health is at risk from stress, limited sleep and the multiple physical and emotional demands on them. Many young carers report constant feelings of sadness, guilt, anger, fear and worry, and at times that contributes to impaired psycho-social development. Our young carers do not have any spare time. They cannot go to the park and play. They cannot meet their friends after school at the local milk bar. They cannot have outings of an evening. They cannot go to the local dance. They cannot go to sporting events or attend cultural, recreation or leisure activities.They are likely to have few friends that they can lean on, and they often feel isolated and lonely because theirs is the task of caring. Young carers frequently miss school, and they tend to leave school early without worrying about qualifying to go on to any tertiary education, simply because of their motivation to care. Distracted by worry and duties, young carers often skip homework and they underachieve at school through no fault of their own. Career choices are often put on hold, and it is difficult to obtain and keep employment when the constant concern is for their loved one at home. The choices and opportunities are limited for our young carers, and they are often unable to leave home, gain employment, get financial independence or have intimate relationships in the future.Currently, our younger carers receive little recognition. They receive little understanding or support from any sector of the community—obviously because there is not a great awareness of our young people's plight in the caring role. There are few programs or services targeting their needs, and they face many barriers to accessing existing services. Above all, our young carers deserve an opportunity to reach their potential through full economic and social participation with peers and in the wider community. Each carer's situation is quite unique. Some carers need to assist with the tasks of daily living and spend their days feeding, bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring and doing a whole host of important things to make life of the best quality possible for the person they love. They are there to provide emotional support day in and day out, night in and night out. They are the most vulnerable people in our communities. They at times can be the most isolated people in our communities. They are the carers, but who cares for the carers? That is the task that all communities need to recognise and understand. A carer's life may begin not only with the birth of a child with a disability or with a stroke; it can happen suddenly as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Many of our carers have in their families someone with acquired brain injury syndrome. It can be the result of an accident, developing over a number of years; in other areas, it is from a condition such as Alzheimer's or dementia that progresses through life. After the recent events in Bali, we see that many families are now facing the prospect of caring for an injured loved one from the Bali bombing blast. Many children aged in their 20s and 30s—I call them children because, as a mother, they are always your children— have suffered serious injuries and have a long, long road to recovery. On top of the 2.3 million carers, these families will be additional carers who will support and love their children and provide the care, the concern, the compassion and the humanity required in order to deliver them back to health if they possibly can. Their brothers, their sisters, their parents, their families and their loved ones will all feel the strain as these young people recover from their injuries.The valuable contribution that carers make is so appreciated. It is recognised by all Australians, but perhaps not to the extent that it should be. I think that there are many things that all areas of government can do to provide our carers with more support. Typically, because many of our carers are chronically tired, they desperately need just one night of unbroken sleep, a day off or an extended period with no caring responsibilities so that they can refresh, get a life for themselves and regain a sense of wellbeing. As I have indicated before, caring can be such a rewarding and fulfilling experience. It can provide opportunities for personal growth and it can provide opportunities for the development of new skills, but it also provides frustration and distress and it severely impacts on a carer's life and on their family relationships. Having watched my mother care for my father in his years with cancer and now having my mother in the same position of having cancer herself, I can see that Carers Week brings to light the fact there are many people who need to be rewarded and congratulated. If I could have a wish it would be that everybody would understand, that everybody would provide assistance, that everybody would offer a helping hand. We are Australians; we offer helping hands. We have just seen that happen in Bali. We do offer services to our government and to our community and, if we could provide one thing, it would be quality of life for all Australians and for all carers of all Australian people. I appreciate the opportunity to pay homage and tribute and to give great recognition to all of those carers in Australia, known or unknown, who provide such wonderful service, such love, such devotion and such protection.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Committees82588258825810000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 11 November 2002. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 11 November 2002Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 11 November. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows:COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS— Standing COMMITTEE: Wireless broadband technologies.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.00 p.m.Speech time limits—First 2 Members speaking—10 minutes each.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]2 ELECTORAL MATTERS—JOINT Standing COMMITTEE: Report on review of Audit Report No. 42 of 2001-02, Integrity of the Electoral Roll.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.20 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—10 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Mr MOSSFIELD to move:That this House:(1) recognises that:(a) young people have a diversity of talent and can provide a fresh insight into the creative industries;(b) there is a need for positive promotion of young people and their achievements;(c) young people wish to advance themselves by utilising work placement and work experience programs; and(d) young people are willing to promote and enhance positive programs on a range of issues such as multiculturalism, education, the environment and social justice issues, including asylum seekers; and(2) urges the Government to:(a) organise a collaborative effort by schools in local areas to provide the opportunity for students to audition, take part in and display their individual talents in a musical performance, with the help of local sponsorship and government funding, to provide a professional opportunity for students in creative areas;(b) provide increased resources to support mechanisms to students in order to enhance educational opportunities and outcomes, including library facilities, syllabus management and student support infrastructure;(c) provide incentives to employers to encourage their participation in work experience and work placement programs and to address the public liability insurance issues that are threatening such programs; and(d) create youth sport and recreation facilities where young people can physically participate and interact with each other to promote better physical and mental well-being. (Notice given 19 September 2002.)Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—5 minutes.First Government Member speaking— 5 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2 Ms MOYLAN to move:That this House:(1) notes:(a) the alarming rise in the number of people with Type 2 Diabetes estimated to be 1 million, with half of those people currently undiagnosed;(b) according to a recent landmark study by Diab Cost Australia Type 2 diabetes is costing Australians a staggering $3 billion a year with the bill for each person averaging nearly $11,000 in expenditure and benefits;(c) according to the study, as the complications of diabetes increase the costs per person are estimated to escalate from $4,020 to $9,625 when there are both microvascular and macrovascular problems;(d) early detection through screening programs and action to slow or prevent the onset of complications will see reductions in health costs and improve and maintain quality of life for individuals with Type 2 Diabetes; and(e) the contribution this landmark study conducted by Associate Professor Stephen Colaguiuri of Diab Cost Australia will make to better informing Government and the public of a significant public health problem;(2) congratulates the Federal Government for the emphasis it has placed on public awareness programs in relation to Type 2 Diabetes; and(3) urges the Government to:(a) continue programs to raise public awareness of the high risk of undiagnosed and untreated cases of Type 2 Diabetes and ensure access to appropriate screening;(b) support access to new medications for the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes while ensuring that Australian taxpayers get value for money through appropriate pricing arrangements;(c) continue to encourage people diagnosed with Diabetes to undergo regular medical test including eye testing so as to prevent complications;(d) ensure adequate funding for further research into prevention and treatment of Type 2 Diabetes; and(e) develop a strong education program encouraging appropriate diet and exercise regimes to minimise the risk of Type 2 Diabetes. (Notice given 15 October 2002.)Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—5 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking— 5 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 Ms IRWIN to move:That this House:(1) notes the continued occupation by the State of Israel of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in contravention of United Nations Resolution 242 passed on 22 November 1967;(2) supports the right of Israel to exist within secure borders;(3) calls on the United Nations to insert a peace keeping force into the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza and the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces;(4) calls for the recognition of the State of Palestine based on the pre 1967 borders of the West Bank and Gaza; and(5) calls on the international community to encourage and support the resolution of outstanding differences between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine based on the Oslo and Camp David Agreements. (Notice given 25 September 2002.)Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—5 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking— 5 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Miscellaneous8260Mr LLOYD (Robertson) (4.13 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That the following bill be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Torres Strait Fisheries Amendment Bill 2002Question agreed to.Miscellaneous826082608260Mr LLOYD (Robertson) (4.13 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That the following order of the day, committee and delegation reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate:Education and Training—Standing Committee—Report on education of boys—Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate.Question agreed to. Bills8260Message from His Excellency the Administrator reported informing the House of assent to the following bill:Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2002Bills8260The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:New Business Tax System (Consolidation, Value Shifting, Demergers and Other Measures) Bill 2002Bills8260R15798260Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate, having considered message No. 172 of the House of Representatives, has resolved to press its request for an amendment and again requests the House to make the amendment.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills8260R16368260Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Mr Abbott:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr McClelland moved by way of amendment: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”.16:15:008261Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Early last century in The Life of Reason, `Reason in commonsense', philosopher George Santayana noted:Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you've lost sight of your aim.I quote that because I have a difference of emphasis from many of my colleagues on this side with regard to this particular piece of legislation, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 [No. 2]. They see it simply as a matter of the government having a trigger for electoral purposes. In contrast, I would put forward that there is a fair degree of fanaticism driving the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations long after the reasons for the legislation have been shown to be rather implausible. The minister seeks essentially to deny people in the small business sector in this country any right to re-engagement or any sense of fair play with regard to their employment situation. We hear implausible promises that, if we allow employers to sack people more easily, all of a sudden throughout the country they are going to hear bells and hire 53,000 people—a figure without any statistical evidence. Nothing has been put forward with regard to how that figure was derived and it is extremely dubious.The sector in which the government seek to deny people any rights is a sector where union concentration is extremely small. These cases are not normally waged by unions because there is very little union membership in this sector. The government are attempting to undertake this role at a time when they themselves cite low levels of industrial action in this country. They deny totally the possibility of negotiating with the opposition with regard to alternatives whereby we can enhance procedures, reduce costs, diminish legalisms and find ways to do something concrete about those cases where employees do wage legal cases to intimidate the employer into paying money, settling the matter or perhaps not terminating their employment when it should be terminated. There is no attempt by the government to put up alternatives or to discuss options. This is very doctrinally and ideologically driven— this or nothing else; there should be no rights for employees, no rights for workers.This government has very little credibility with regard to industrial relations in general. Sydney radio commentator Alan Jones, as recently as 25 September, noted:There has been a fairly major exercise in union bashing going on for some months, calling itself a Royal Commission.Alan Jones, a noted friend and associate of the Prime Minister, was talking about the royal commission that this government and this minister are waging in this country at the moment. This government, which comes to us and says, `We are about protecting people's rights' et cetera, is waging a royal commission—and paying a person $660,000 a year to chair it—which is totally denying the proliferation of safety issues in this country; where 97 per cent of the hearing periods have been for anti-union statements; and where there have been 633 employer witnesses and a mere 36 on behalf of unions and workers. That royal commission, instigated for political purposes—like this legislation—by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, seeks to deny the reality in the building industry and gives no time to and has no interest in the very real safety issues that should be the preoccupation of it. In 2001 we saw 45 deaths in the building industry, and it is estimated that, in 1998-99, injuries in the building industry cost the Australian economy $109 million.Here today for the seventh or eighth time—some have said seven times and some have said eight; I have lost count—the government have come into this place with this piece of legislation which has been rejected in the Senate, which has been found to be of no real purpose and which is essentially driven to destroy employees' rights, when very real issues do confront workers and the Australian economy. As I say, it is a royal commission which is wasting taxpayers' money—millions upon millions of dollars squandered by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in an attempt to undermine, deregister and get rid of the CFMEU. Equally, here today we are wasting our time with this legislation. This is the same government which is allowing the conditions of Australian workers, whether or not they are in unions, to be undermined totally by the way in which it is allowing easy access to this economy by visiting workers—457 visas have become run-of-the-mill these days, and even the government has occasionally expressed some doubts. We have a situation in Blacktown in Western Sydney where a person was working for less than $1 an hour, with no superannuation and no workers compensation, doing frescos et cetera in the Serbian Orthodox Church there. Similarly, in an Indian temple in the south of Sydney or north of Wollongong—whichever way you want to put it— people were locked up and not allowed out of their workplace for months on end under these same visas. They are the kinds of industrial conditions that this government is trying to precipitate in this country.Today, once again, the government are bringing in legislation which says, `If you're sacked you have no right to have a day in court. You have no right to any appeal on those matters if you are in a company with fewer than 20 employees.' The government's credibility is so meagre, given their broader agenda. They are allowing the proliferation of visitor visas for two and four years for jobs that can be done by Australian workers; they are encouraging the situation where people are undermining Australian conditions and are prepared to work for nothing; and, at the same time, they have a royal commission which is wasting the Australian taxpayers' money for no real purpose.As I said earlier, I cannot have any great confidence in the assurances of the minister that this job creation nirvana is really going to occur. To illustrate the situation of people who would suffer because of this legislation, the ABS shows that the average person in Australia, upon termination, is out of work for 22 weeks. Similarly, with regard to those over 45 years of age, I understand that the current average is 96 weeks out of employment. It is a very serious matter when someone is terminated from employment. They are not going to get a job next week in the company down the road. If they are over 40, as I say, they are out for years. This government would say that, despite that disruption to people's lives—the fact that people are thrown on the scrap heap for often questionable reasons and trifling irrelevancies or they are terminated because there are other people out there to do the job—they should be given no other options, no protection whatsoever, nor the option to try to get their job back. There were other figures in the last week or so about the way in which people in the Australian work force are giving up on the possibility of re-employment when they are terminated.I would like to talk about why people are terminated and what can happen. I want to cite a recent case which admittedly involved Telstra, not a small employer, but which is a comparative situation of people being terminated. The CEPU worked on behalf of one of my constituents, David Portelli, who was terminated on 13 May 2001. Now, a year or so later, his termination has been thrown out by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in a unanimous 3-nil decision. What happened was that the employers, it would seem to me, attempted a set-up by leaving in the car park a mobile phone in an obvious state of disrepair. In later evidence it was indicated by management that for three months they knew this mobile was in the possession of the employee. They knew for three months that he had it. When it came to his attention that it was not lost, discarded or owned by who knows who, he returned it to management the next day. This person had worked for Telstra for 11 years, not 11 days. He had been the subject of commendations and praise. There was no financial gain to him whatsoever with regard to the repair of this mobile phone. The commission in the first instance—and later the full bench of the Industrial Relations Commission—found that the employee had given a plausible account of events. In a similar instance, with the same Telstra management and in exactly the same circumstances, Telstra had said that the matter warranted no more than a warning; but because this person was the union delegate and had been involved in struggling against AWAs, in his case it was found to be a `capital offence' and he was terminated. So, on the one hand, a warning was good enough for one person and, on the other hand, a person was terminated, despite 11 years of employment. The commission questioned whether there had been procedural fairness. The people in Telstra who assisted with police investigations on the supposed theft also carried out the internal investigation. When the person involved was brought before management in January 2001, they decided that it was not serious enough at that stage to warrant his suspension and yet, a few months later, they decided that it required termination. These are very real examples of what can happen on the other side of the industrial fence.The assumption all the time is that employees warrant dismissal. The assumption is that the workers are always out to undermine the employers' industry—that they are always out to thieve money or to be slack on the job. This was clearly the case when the Australian Industrial Relations Commission had to decide last year in the case of my constituent, who, as I say, was out of work for a year and had to spend all that time in the legal system to get his job back. That is how difficult it is for employees. This government would try to make it impossible for people to get even that far. That person was fortunate that the CEPU and, more particularly, the mayor of one of my municipalities, Councillor Malcolm Tulloch, were able to fight the matter for a year. But this government has no interest in the fact that that person was without wages for a year, that his family life was disrupted and that there were difficulties with his wife because of those circumstances. The government has no interest in the circumstances of the average person. It is driven by the very doctrinal approach of trying to deny people any rights whatsoever.The government is coming forward with a piece of legislation which went down the gurgler on a number of occasions because of opposition not just from the Labor Party but also from the Greens, the Democrats and the minor parties. People see it for what it is: no real solution for when there are, on some occasions, concrete problems. The government should be finding ways of getting a piece of legislation which the parties can agree upon as a commonsense, intelligent approach to what is, on some occasions, a problem. There is no attempt to do anything about trying to get a sensible alternative to the current practices. There is no attempt to look at the situation of small business and the fact that there exists, on occasion, a disincentive to employment et cetera. All there is is a grandiose statement that 53,000 jobs will be created from who knows where, on the promise of the minister opposite, because he simply wants to drive this home as an indication of support for employers' interests.In conclusion, the matter has been raised here on a number of occasions. There is no real sense to the piece. It will not get through the parliament on yet another occasion. It is going to postpone once again the possibility of any intelligent, concrete alternative to the problem where it does exist. It is a piece of legislation which, if it were to ever be successful, would say to the average person in this country—in an economy that is characterised by severe casualisation, longer working hours and insecurity for those in employment—that people would have no rights whatsoever if they were unfortunate enough to work in an enterprise which had 16 rather than 21 employees. I again urge the House and the Senate to reject this legislation.16:29:008264Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 [No. 2]. I believe very strongly in workable unfair dismissal laws. I believe they are a part of the responsibility agenda for our society. They ensure that employers meet their proper responsibilities in the workplace. I believe passionately in the importance of social and economic responsibility. We live in troubled times. We live in a society where its cohesion, its connectedness, is not as strong as it used to be. Indeed, we live in conditions where the Australian economy is experiencing record rates of GDP but Australian society is experiencing record rates of trouble—record rates of youth suicide, family breakdown, and community and social decline. If you ask the average Australian what they want most out of life, they will say, `Stronger connections with other people.' They will talk about the importance of social relationships. They will not necessarily put economic issues and economic policy at the top of their priorities. In that environment, it is important for government to demand responsibility from all parts of our society: to demand that we look after each other, and that we have regard for notions of common decency, regard for providing a helping hand for those in need and regard for trying to help those who have made a mistake and seeing if they can correct that mistake next time. We need a society and government policy that demand responsibility from all: responsibility from the rich, responsibility from the poor and responsibility from all those in between.The unfortunate thing about this legislation is that the Howard government has a very lopsided definition of responsibility. This is a government that wants people on the dole to work for their entitlements. This is a government that wants to extend mutual obligation to other welfare recipients. This is a government that very much wants to apply the responsibility agenda to disadvantaged citizens. In its own right, I have no objection to mutual responsibility for those in difficult circumstances. People do need to make a personal effort in tandem with government support to end the poverty cycle. More importantly, I want to see government policies that apply responsibility across the board— not just to the poor and disadvantaged but to the top end of town; not just to big business but to all businesses.I believe passionately that all employers in this country have a responsibility to their employees: a responsibility to counsel, to assist, to correct mistakes, to give warnings and to do as much as they can to produce a harmonious and productive workplace. This is a government with a lopsided definition of responsibility. They seem to have no problem with the sins of corporate crooks like Malcolm Turnbull. He has been rewarded with the position of treasurer of the federal Liberal Party. The problems that he has caused in corporate Australia are of no concern to the government, yet they want to apply responsibility to those who are disadvantaged and to those who are trying to break free of the poverty cycle.I look at this question of unfair dismissal very much as an employer, and I believe that all members of parliament can relate to this. We have an entitlement to three employees in our electorate offices. In my experience, I have always thought that, if staff have difficulties or if their work performance is not up to scratch, they deserve warnings, they deserve counselling and they deserve a helping hand to try to improve their performance. I believe it is wrong—I believe it is indecent—to just sack people on the spot and to have a rule of one mistake and they are gone. What sort of barbaric society have we become when people are not excused for one error? This government, and now this minister, wants to give employers the power to sack on the spot and to basically say that, for one mistake—and it could be, `I don't like the way you look,' or, `I don't like what you are doing'—you can be sacked without any recourse to the law and without any process of appeal, that you can be dismissed without any legal rights whatsoever. I believe that is plain wrong and plain indecent.This is not good legislation. This is legislation that simply reflects the minister's own personal prejudice against the trade union movement. It is not law that would build a more cohesive and productive society. It is not law that would improve economic performance in this country. In fact, it would produce a dog-eat-dog—a very savage—environment in the Australian workplace. The minister has a problem in that his own personal prejudice against the unions is driving bad legislation such as this. Why does the minister, the member for Warringah, hate the trade union movement? It relates to his interest in his father figure, Bob Santamaria, and the fact that Santamaria tried to take over the union movement in this country and failed. Basically, from a DLP perspective, what they cannot control they will try to destroy. It is the minister trying to make up for the failings of his father figure, Santamaria, in trying to destroy the Australian trade union movement. We all know his obsession with the father-son relationship. He has mentioned it in this House 242 times since 1998. He has a bad obsession with the father-son relationship. Now, with his father figure, Santamaria, he is trying to make up for those failings in the 1950s and 1960s. Santamaria did these things in the name of Catholicism, and the minister is well known for boasting about the Catholicisation of the Liberal Party. But the truth is that he is not always in tune with the teachings of his own church. It reflects the minister's hypocrisy. He is what we call a `cafeteria Catholic'; he wants to pick and choose the bits of his religion that he accepts and that are in tune with his political interests. On some issues, most notably stem cell research, he sounds like he swallowed the catechism. But it turns out there were some pages of the catechism that he spat back out, like the page that says:Remuneration for work should ... (take) into account ... the common good. Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.The teachings of the Catholic Church, the social justice approach of that church, clearly state that there should be agreement in the workplace, that there should be harmony and that we should try to create the moral good between people. There should not be a dog-eat-dog environment where someone can be sacked for one mistake, where someone can be sacked on the spot and where someone can lose their livelihood—their capacity to feed and house their children—because of the minister's determination to push through the abolition of unfair dismissal laws. The minister's support for individual contracts and the abolition of unfair dismissal laws makes him a heretic in the Catholic Church. He is not in tune with their most decent teachings. He is not in tune with the social justice aspects of the catechism. I think this is a great shame indeed. It is also a shame that the minister continues to take out his personal frustrations on the Australian trade union movement. But he is not the only minister to do this. Earlier this year we had the ridiculous notion from the member for North Sydney, the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, that it was important for the parliament to pass these laws to help the 700,000 home based small businesses. That was what the minister said. He said he thought these unfair dismissal laws should be abolished because that would assist Australia's 700,000 home based small businesses.It is a well-known fact that 80 per cent of home based businesses employ their own family as staff. So the minister for small business is saying that he wants these laws abolished to make it easier for people to sack their own family. What an absurd notion. Eighty per cent of Australia's 700,000 home based small businesses employ their family—very often they employ their children— as staff members. The silly minister for small business thinks that we need these laws abolished so that small business employers can sack their own kids. He has been taking lessons for the member for Warringah, and it is a shameful thing. We do not need laws in this country to make it easier for people to sack their own family. We do not need laws to make it easier for people to sack their own children who are employed in home based small businesses. We need laws that preserve decency and legal and human rights in the workplace. We do not need these barbaric laws that allow people to just sack their own kids from their own business. It is an absurd notion and it should be dismissed as such.I think it is important to look at the reasons why the government could possibly want to pass these laws. How can you understand it? I think you need a psychologist to try to work out where the government are coming from. They want people to sack their own children in home based businesses, they want to throw out the notion of a decent society and they want a dog-eat-dog industrial environment. You do need a psychologist to work these things out. It is no wonder the member for Warringah wrote in the Bulletin magazine on 18 August 1987:Dr Iverson had asked me to see a psychologist to clarify whether the priesthood was what I really wanted. The psychologist reported that without the warmth and trust of real intimacy I would find life in the celibate priesthood too frustrating and lacking in peace. Lack of sensual intimacy is something that priests have always had to handle. In my case, this has become a heavy burden. I will bet it had become heavy burden. Why does he lack sensual intimacy for the trade union movement? Why does he lack a sense of warmth and real intimacy for Australian trade unionists? Australian trade unions are Australia's largest community based organisation, and we hear from the member for Warringah and other government members that they support community. Why then would you knock the nation's largest community based organisation, which has two million members? If you support community, if you support social capital and if you support a more cohesive society, why would you knock and ridicule Australia's trade union movement—the largest community based group in this nation? The member for Warringah really does need to reconsider his priorities.I note in another of his articles, this time in the Australian newspaper on 13 June 1984, he wrote as follows: As time went by it seemed to me the real issues were not so much political but spiritual. The important arena was not parliament, the economy or the strategic balance but the human heart. The great qualities were not ambition, ability or eloquence but love.That is what he had to say in 1984. Where has his love for the union movement gone in the subsequent 18 years? This was a minister who was saying that the important issue was not political but spiritual; the important arena was not parliament, the economy or the strategic balance but the human heart—the brave heart. He could have been taking lessons from the Minister for Education, Science and Training. It is the brave heart that matters; it is not great ambitions, ability or eloquence but love. The politics of love was the basis of his approach to issues in 1984 and, sadly, it has disappeared. The only love now is the tough love that he advocates for welfare recipients. He needs to rekindle and rediscover his love for community based organisations, particularly the trade union movement. The minister went on to say in that article in the Australian newspaper:It's been said that I have a martyr complex, that I like to rush off and engage in heroic struggles for lost causes. I hope that's not true.Minister, when it comes to this legislation, we hope it is true. We desperately hope this is one of your lost causes—to once more be defeated in the Senate. It is bad legislation. It should be rejected by the parliament, and I urge the minister to rediscover the politics of love. I urge the minister to rediscover the sensual intimacy that he longed for in the priesthood and to show a kinder heart. Take a lesson from the minister for education and show a brave heart—a kind, human heart for Australia's largest community based organisation. Don't foster a dog-eat-dog environment in Australian workplaces where people can just sack other human beings at will. Don't foster such barbarism in Australia's workplaces. Foster the things that you advocated when you contemplated your move into Australian politics. I also urge the minister to consider the importance of the union movement for cultural reasons. For those of us who love this country, one of the institutions we truly treasure is Australian mateship. The truth is that Australian unions are the heart and soul of the institution of mateship. To attack the union movement, to try to destroy it, as the minister attempts, is to attack Australian mateship and to attack one of the great institutions of our nation. I am inspired by a reading of Australian history, in particular Russell Ward's book The Australian Legend. On page 198 he writes about the development of the union movement in the 1890s in this country, saying:The phenomenally rapid growth of the union probably sprang more from the bushmen's already existing ethos than from the organising genius and missionary zeal of prominent leaders. Once the idea of trade union combination was put before them, it seemed to most bushmen merely a natural extension of the non-political, but cherished and familiar, sentiments associated with the concept of mateship.Ward goes on to quote William Guthrie Spence, as follows:Unionism came to the Australian bushman as a religion. It came bringing salvation from years of tyranny. It had in it that feeling of mateship which he understood already, and which always characterised the action of one `white man' to another. Unionism extended the idea, so a man's character was gauged by whether he stood true to Union rules or `scabbed' it on his fellows. The man who never went back on the Union is honoured to-day as no other is honoured or respected. The man who fell once may be forgiven, but is not fully trusted. The lowest term of reproach is to call a man a `scab'. ... At many a country ball the girls have refused to dance with them, the barmaids have refused them a drink, and the waitresses a meal.Such is the lot of the scab. Minister, unfortunately you will not have many country girls dancing with you and you will not have many barmaids serving you a drink because, in terms of what you are trying to do to Australian unionism and mateship, you too are a scab. You deserve that ultimate reproach for what you are trying to do to the trade union movement.10000Price, Roger (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. L.R.S. Price)—Order! Honourable Member for Werriwa, it would be helpful to the chair if you withdrew that remark.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I pointed out, the government is vulnerable on the issue of social responsibility, because in truth it has a lopsided view of our obligations as citizens. It applies them only to the poor and powerless. The Liberals have exempted the corporate sector from the demands of social responsibility, and so too it is with this legislation. The minister is trying to exempt the corporate sector from any responsibility it might take in the workplace. We all know, as employers ourselves, that we make the choice as to who comes to work for us. You make a judgment; you make a choice. People apply for a job, you interview them, you assess their credentials and you make a judgment as to the best person suited to the position. We know that as members of parliament, with our staff entitlement of three in our electorate offices. Surely people should take responsibility for the judgment they have made; they cannot just wipe it and say, `Last week I made a mistake, or last month I made a mistake, and I bear no responsibility for that error of judgment.' The corporate sector must take its proper social and economic responsibility. If people have made a mistake, they should have the decency to counsel, to warn, to assist staff and to improve their performance in the future.The minister has one rule for disadvantaged Australians and a different rule for corporate Australia. He said in July that we should excuse the behaviour of bad bosses because they are no worse than bad husbands or bad fathers. This, unfortunately, is typical of his view of society. He has spent a lifetime preaching responsibility to the poor but never practising it. In a perceptive cartoon in the Australian newspaper, Bill Leak summarised the minister's mantra as follows:A bad boss is like a bad husband or a bad father: he should be able to walk away any time he likes.The truth is you should not be able to walk away from your proper responsibilities. Unfortunately, the minister has spent too much time walking away from his responsibilities in every sense. I would say this is not the Australian way. It is not the Australian way to slag the underdog and prop up the tall poppies. It is not the Australian way to create a dog-eat-dog environment in the workplace. We should have greater cohesion and greater trust and confidence as citizens, and that should be extended to the industrial relations environment.It is sad that there is a double standard. The previous speaker, the member for Reid, was talking about the minister's double standard, where he is trying to use a very expensive royal commission into the building industry to destroy trade unionism. It is turning out to be something of a damp squib. He has all these worries about corruption in the building industry but he seems to have no problem with corruption in the legal industry, particularly when it involves his Warringah campaign manager, Ian Harley MacDonald. The minister is a regular visitor to the Kirkconnell Prison in western New South Wales, where MacDonald, shamefully, is serving 5½ years for embezzling $7 million from his legal practice—basically, embezzling money from little old ladies in the electorate of Warringah. The bad priest, it seems, is quite fond of bad bosses and bad lawyers.Labor have no time for any of them. We have no time for this legislation. We believe that, if government is to demand responsibility from the weak, the same demand must also apply to the powerful. Unlike the Liberals, we do not believe in means testing mutual obligation. Rich people, poor people and everyone in between have a basic responsibility to assist each other and to put something back into the community. There is one saving grace here, because the minister is in the chamber and he is listening to my speech with good intent—EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Grace.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—and good grace, unlike the occasion in the last session of parliament when I attempted to make a five-minute speech on industrial relations and was gagged off at half past one in the morning when the parliament had many more hours to sit. It was as if he was trying to dodge me. The minister did not want to hear my five-minute contribution, even though the parliament had many hours to sit.I have been worried about the minister. I have taken an interest in him, and we have had some dialogue and political debate. I understood he was the hard man of the Liberal Party but, unfortunately, in recent times I rather fear he has been trying to dodge me, because he says to the newspapers so often, `I have no comment to make on the member for Werriwa's remarks.' It is like the mad monk becoming the Trappist monk. He seems to have lost his voice; he has become Howard's coward. We worry about his credentials when it comes to standing up for himself, putting his point of view across and living up to his reputation as the tough guy on the other side. It makes me think of the news that when he won that boxing blue at Oxford his opponent went on to be Director of the Royal Ballet in London. Maybe Doug Cameron was joking about that, but we understand that, in fact, it is quite true. He has become a bit of a marshmallow. We knew him as the mad monk but, in recent times, he has become the Trappist monk. We oppose this legislation, and I very much look forward to what response the minister might make in reply.16:49:008268Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We have just witnessed a remarkable speech to close the ALP's contributions to this debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 [No. 2]. I do not propose to dignify too much of it with a response. Nevertheless, I think it is important to say at the outset that what we have seen over the past few weeks in this parliament is that on both sides of this chamber there is much that we agree on. We agree on the war against terrorism. We agree that Australians should stand together in the face of natural disasters such as fire and drought. It has been one of the encouraging things in this parliament and, I am sure, to people who listen to this parliament to see that, notwithstanding all the issues on which we disagree, on some of the big fundamental questions there is much on which we do agree.Nevertheless, the different degree of emphasis which the respective parties place on trade unions and their place in our system certainly is an enduring point of disagreement. This particular bill is one of those issues where our different emphases do come sharply into play. This government is unashamedly and unambiguously in favour of small business, whereas, when it comes to the crunch, members opposite usually find themselves falling into line with the dictates of big unions. I know that many members opposite have done their best to try to reduce the formal hold the trade unions have over the ALP but, for better or for worse, they were not able to go nearly as far as many of them would have liked. I think this continued attachment—for all sorts of reasons: some understandable; some, in their own way, noble—that members opposite have to the union movement, its mystique, its ethos and its values, has tended to come out in the course of this debate.But this government has faith in the Australian people. We have faith in the Australian worker; we have faith in the Australian employer. They are not perfect: they will not, from time to time, avoid mistakes; they will not, from time to time, avoid treating each other in ways that are less than perfect. But, by and large, this government believes that the Australian worker and the Australian boss can be trusted to organise their own relationships with each other. Sometimes it will not work out, but that is life. Certainly this government believes that freedom is more important than excessive regulation that can swamp and overwhelm the initiative and the good sense of the ordinary Australian.We believe that the unfair dismissal laws, insofar as they apply to small business, are a classic case of a cure that is worse than the disease. The last thing that this government would want to see, should this bill be passed into law in both houses of parliament, is people being harshly or unconscionably dismissed. But, quite frankly, there are very few instances of that in modern Australia, where we have, generally speaking, humane and intelligent employers and highly intelligent and independent minded workers. The problem with the law as it stands is that one or two difficult cases have been allowed to create a regulatory structure that stands in the way of the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs.This government has no intention of taking the unfair dismissal regime off larger businesses—although there are certainly some further improvements that we would like to make to the way unfair dismissal works generally—but we do believe that small business is different. Small business is more like a family than an institution. Small businesses, generally speaking, do not have the complex structures in place to carry out the kinds of formal requirements that the unfair dismissal regime has generally imposed upon them. That is why small business deserves an exemption. This idea of exempting small business is not particularly new or unusual. There is a long history in our system of treating small business differently in important respects from larger businesses. To give just one example, the Industrial Relations Commission typically permits a different redundancy regime to that of larger business to apply to small business because the Industrial Relations Commission, in its wisdom and in its understanding of the way our system works, appreciates that small business is different from big business.What we are really on about here is not the desire to oppress anyone—far from it. What we are on about is trying to enable the businesses of this country, the economy of this country, to create the maximum possible number of jobs for people to enjoy. At the end of the day, that is the important thing to have: a job—not a right of sorts to go into a commission and argue a case under which you might get a few hundred or a few thousand dollars and, if you are particularly lucky, reinstatement. It is far better to give people a much wider range of jobs and opportunities so that they can make the most of their situation; so that they can pick themselves up off the ground of disappointment and go on to make the most of their lives.The basic principle that members opposite are refusing to concede is that if you cannot afford to let someone go you cannot afford to take people on. This is what small business knows in the marrow of its bones; this is what many members opposite understand but are not allowed to say because of the policy position forced upon them by the union bosses. I do not want to go through member after member opposite and put words in their mouths, but certainly there is the classic statement by the member for Hunter, when he was the shadow minister for small business—and I see he has entered the chamber again, with what I am sure is a cheery smile on his face because isn't it good to have your words listened to, understood and appreciated! As the member for Hunter said on that celebrated occasion: `My wife is in small business and she knows just how much easier it would be to employ people if she was not faced with the burden of these laws.'8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—That story is getting better and better! Could you table it?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Like all good stories, it is savoured, appreciated and improved over time.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Like a good Hunter red!EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Members opposite have, from time to time, tried to oppose the government's position by telling us that this or that survey shows that only five per cent of small business think that they would take more people on if these laws were changed.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—It is less than that, actually; it is less than one per cent.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Even if it were one per cent, that is some 10,000 or 15,000 small businesses. That is 10,000 or 15,000 new jobs that this economy would have if these laws were changed. Members opposite frequently stand up and say that there are many other things that are of greater concern to small business—I would not disagree. There are lots of issues that are of concern to small business and there are lots of issues that, if they were treated differently, would help small business. I am sure that a general lowering of tax would help small business, but I should point out that this government has lowered taxes, particularly business taxes. I am sure that lower interest rates would help small business to create jobs, but I should point out that this government has lowered interest rates very significantly and substantially over the last six years. So, sure, there are lots of things apart from this bill that would help small business, but the fact is that this is the matter before the parliament and this is a matter that this parliament can address simply by the vote before us today and the vote in the Senate in a few weeks time. So I would ask those members opposite who do take small business seriously and who would like to see the employment opportunities available to ordinary Australians increased to think again about this bill.I listened with interest, as I always do, to the contribution of the shadow minister, the member for Barton. It was thoughtful, intelligent and well argued. As I have said before, he is a good lawyer and, like all good lawyers, he does his best with the brief he has. I do not think it is a good brief; I think he is a barrister with a dodgy brief. I wish he could change his instructing solicitors, but unfortunately the union bosses are still there and they are still handing out the documents for the barrister to refer to.If you look at the shadow minister's speech, it was basically in two parts. Firstly, there was a concession that there were problems with the unfair dismissal laws that would be addressed, he said, by amendments. Secondly, there was the veiled threat that if small business were exempt from the unfair dismissal laws they would be faced with something worse—the unfair termination laws. I am sure that there are all sorts of issues with the unfair termination laws, but the unfair dismissal law is the issue before the parliament and the fear of something worse should not stop us from doing something good now. It should not stop us from providing a definite if not necessarily all-encompassing improvement that would help bring about the things we all say we believe in.This has become one of those bits of watershed legislation. It has become something of a political icon. This government has now proposed, in one or other house of this parliament, to improve the unfair dismissal laws 21 times, and we have been opposed by the ALP 21 times. I accept that the shadow minister does have some amendments. I accept that some of those amendments do make some sense. I am prepared to entertain those amendments in a different context—but not here. This is an important part of this government's mandate. We went to the electorate in 1996, in 1998 and again in 2001 saying that we wanted to improve the unfair dismissal laws, we wanted to take unfair dismissal off the back of small business and we wanted to keep faith with small business. It is very important that we do not let small business down. I have to say that this bill does demonstrate the fundamental differences between the parties: the fundamental support that we have for small business and the fundamental instinct that members opposite have for big business; and the fundamental support that we have for the idea of freedom and the fundamental instinct that members opposite have for regulation because you cannot trust people to do the right thing in nearly every circumstance. I commend this bill to the House.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McClelland's amendment) stand part of the question.17:07:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Wilkie) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.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.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.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.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.Windsor, A.H.C.58Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.Original question agreed to.Bill read a second time.8272Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:13:008272McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (12):(1) Schedule 1, before item 1, page 3 (before line 4), insert:1A Subsection 42(3)Before “A party (including an employing authority)”, insert “Subject to subsection (3A) ,”.(2) Schedule 1, before item 1, page 3 (before line 4), insert:1B After subsection 42(3)Insert: (3A) The Commission must not grant leave under subsection (3) to a counsel, solicitor or agent acting for a fee or reward in a conciliation under Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part VIA of this Act unless it is satisfied that it would assist the just and expeditious resolution of the proceeding, having regard to:(a) the complexity of the proceeding; and(b) the capacity of another party to the proceeding to secure representation; and(c) the likely cost of such representation; and(d) any other matter the Commission considers relevant. (3B) A party may not be represented by an agent in a proceeding under Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part VIA of this Act unless:(a) the agent is a registered industrial agent within the meaning of section 42A of this Act; or(b) the agent is not a registered industrial agent within the meaning of section 42A of this Act but is a member, officer or employee of an organisation registered under this Act; or(c) the agent is not a registered industrial agent within the meaning of section 42A of this Act but the Commission is satisfied that the agent is not acting for reward.(3) Schedule 1, before item 1, page 3 (before line 4), insert:1C After section 42 (3A)Insert:42A Register of industrial agents (1) In this Act:registered industrial agent means a person who is registered as an industrial agent in the register of industrial agents referred to in subsection (2). (2) The Industrial Registrar must create and maintain a register of industrial agents in accordance with the regulations. (3) The regulations must prescribe: (a) the manner in which the Industrial Registrar must create and maintain the register of industrial agents; (b) the conditions, including qualifications and experience, an applicant must meet for registration; (c) a code of conduct with which registered industrial agents must comply; (d) the manner in which the Industrial Registrar may remove or suspend a person from the register of industrial agents.(4) Schedule 1, before item 1, page 3 (before line 4) insert:1D Section 98Add: (2) The regulations may prescribe an indicative time frame for the progress and resolution of a proceeding under Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part VIA of this Act.(5) Schedule 1, before item 1, page 3 (before line 4), insert:1E After section 170CAInsert:170CAA Minister to publish information to assist employers and employees (1) The Minister, in consultation with the relevant Minister of each State and Territory, must publish information, which may include practical examples, to assist employers and employees to comply with this Part. (2) After publishing information under subsection (1), the Minister must promote the publication in workplaces and make it readily available free of charge.(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 to 6), omit the item, substitute:1 After subsection 170CE(1)Insert: (1A) The Commission must not accept an application seeking relief on the ground that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable if the applicant seeks only financial compensation, unless the applicant satisfies the Commission that exceptional circumstances exist for not seeking a restoration of the employment relationship. (1B) Before rejecting an application under subsection (1A), the Commission must give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The party named as respondent need not be present at any such hearing.Note: Reasonable opportunity includes providing such assistance to the applicant as may be necessary to overcome any language difficulties that may confront the applicant.(7) Schedule 1, after item 1, page 3 (after line 6), insert:1F Subsection 170CE(3)Omit the subsection, substitute: (3) If: (a) an employee's employment has been terminated by the employer; or (b) more than one employee's employment has been terminated by the employer at the same time or for related reasons; and a trade union's rules entitle it to represent the industrial interests of the employee or employees the union may, on behalf of the employee or employees, apply to the Commission for relief: (c) on the ground that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; or (d) on the ground of an alleged contravention of section 170CK, 170CL, 170CM or 170CN; or (e) on a ground or on any combination of grounds in paragraph (b), and the ground in paragraph (a).(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 7 to 27), omit the item, substitute:2 Subsection 170CE(6)Omit “, (3)”.(9) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 28) to page 4 (line 28), omit the item, substitute:3 After subsection 170CF(1)Insert: (1A) The Commission may, on the application of a party or of its own motion, conduct a conciliation conference by telephone or other electronic medium, subject to such conditions as it considers appropriate. (1B) In determining whether to conduct a conciliation conference by telephone or other electronic medium, the Commission must consider:(a) whether it is impractical or inconvenient for a party to attend a conciliation conference in person for reasons including cost, distance, physical or other disability, the nature of the relationship between the parties, or the nature of the party's business or employment commitments; and(b) whether the party applying to appear by telephone or other electronic medium has made reasonable attempts to obtain the consent of all other parties to the matter; and(c) any other matter the Commission considers relevant.(10) Schedule 1, item 4, to be opposed.(11) Schedule 1, item 5, to be opposed.(12) Schedule 1, item 6, to be opposed.While the opposition has put forward 12 amendments, essentially there are seven substantial points involved. I want to briefly restate the context in which we are putting these proposed amendments forward. To a degree, the act already contains recognition of how the unfair dismissal regime is applied to small business. Specifically, the act requires the commission, before making an order for reinstatement, to consider the size of the establishment and whether the establishment or business owner has access to technical human resources advice. The current legislation also requires the commission to grant a certification before a bill moves on from the conciliation phase to the arbitration phase. If an advocate—not only the applicant but an advocate—continues an action beyond that certificate stage and ultimately loses the case, in circumstances where the certificate had been granted and the commission did not consider the matter was of substance, that advocate, let alone the applicant, would themselves face the risk of cost.As I indicated during my speech in the second reading debate, the main focus, therefore, of our amendments is trying to reduce costs and to simplify procedures. In particular, we are aware that a small business proprietor receiving on their desk a service of an application for unfair dismissal would face some anxiety and say, `This is going to cost me several thousand dollars in legal fees. Even if I win the case, I'm not going to recover those fees.' Our amendments are designed primarily for that circumstance. They empower the commission to restrict legal representation or appearances by paid agents—someone acting for fee or reward— at that conciliation phase. As I have indicated, after that phase, after the certificate is granted as to whether the matter is of merit, it then moves into the arbitration phase. That is the main thrust of the ALP amendments.I will also go through, more briefly, the other amendments. We also believe that it is appropriate to place an emphasis on reinstatement by requiring the commission to reject an application unless that application states that the person actually wants their job back. In other words, our amendments would cut out those circumstances where a person may be putting in an application not for reasons of job security but, rather, to get a fistful of gold at the end of the application. We think that the whole intention of this legislation originally was, and should be, about these issues of job security if someone has been unfairly dismissed.The third area where we propose legislation, which would require measures by way of regulation, is in respect of requiring the registration of paid agents. Speaking in favour of my previous profession, while there are ethical codes that govern the conduct of lawyers, there are not similar codes that apply in respect of paid agents. There should be, and we are proposing that there be a system of registration of paid agents such that, if a paid agent does not comply with the principles in a code—such as appropriate fees, appropriate standards of conduct, appropriate frankness and so forth—that agent could obviously be deregistered. Therefore, we would avoid a situation where people were acting as ambulance chasers to try and get the fee for themselves as opposed to reasonable outcomes for their clients. The registration of paid agents has been achieved in a number of state jurisdictions, and we believe that it is something the government should look at in the federal legislation. (Extension of time granted)The fourth area where we are proposing that steps be taken is in respect of the development of an information program by the minister, acting in conjunction with relevant state ministers. One may argue that this is not the sort of thing that you would normally prescribe in a technical way in legislation. There may be an argument to that effect. Nonetheless, we believe that some recognition of that—just as the legislation these days has notes at the foot of sections referring to relevant case law, principles or the like—in terms of similar guidelines or information should be developed. Another instance is the human rights area, where there are examples given in the legislation regarding appropriate conduct in respect of women breastfeeding at work. That is the sort of notion that we have in mind here. In terms of our reasoning for that, anyone who analyses this legislation or analyses the area of unfair dismissal says that the substantial problem is the absence of uniformity Australia wide. This legislation, if it were to be passed by the parliament, would only advantage some 27 per cent of businesses. It would not apply to the great bulk of small businesses, which are regulated under state systems.As I have previously said, the information package would, in my view, emphasise three principles. There is no great drama or technicality in the concept of a fair go all round. Basically, if someone has been sacked because of misconduct, there is an obligation under principles of fairness to put the case to them, to put the allegations against them and to at least give them the opportunity to respond. I think people would say that that is fair play. That would be one of the instances. If someone were going to be sacked because of poor performance, you would sit the person down, explain the area of their work that you were not happy with, give them the opportunity to improve, and, if they did not improve, dismiss them. Equally, if someone were going to be sacked because of the operational requirements of the business, it is fair to say that morality would dictate, in this day and age, given the consequences of redundancy—and I think it is about 22 weeks on average that someone is unemployed after being made redundant and almost two years if they are over 45—that you would give that person the dignity of sitting down and you would explain the circumstances and let them put any counterpropositions for you to consider before terminating their employment on such grounds.The fifth area of our amendments is in respect of the minister being able to set indicative time frames for the disposal of unfair dismissal proceedings. That speaks for itself; we think these matters should be resolved quickly. The sixth area of our amendments is in respect of promoting the greater utilisation of electronic means of communication. This is particularly important for those small businesses that are located away from the capital cities. We recognise there can be great expense in being required to travel to capital cities for conferences and the like, and the use of electronic communication— video technology and the like—would greatly ease the burden of absence from business and expense. That is something that we are proposing. The final recommendation is in respect of facilitating representative actions if there are a number of people dismissed on the same basis and, for similar reasons, ensuring that there is a capacity for a registered organisation to commence a representative action. We cannot see how it can possibly be in the interests of the applicant, the employer or the commission for there to be a multiplicity of actions in those circumstances.These amendments are moved genuinely—I think the minister acknowledges that—in an endeavour to simplify procedures and reduce costs. They are amendments that we think could be applied on a universal basis. We would be open to looking at other reforms that are practical but that keep, essentially, the principle that is instilled in this legislation. I believe this principle is part of the reason there is now a culture in Australian workplaces where employers do, by and large, try to give employees a fair go before sacking them. If we lose this legislative underpinning we may well undermine this principle, and our amendments are designed to prevent that. (Time expired)17:24:008275Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Barton for his contribution to this debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 [No. 2]. I particularly welcome his acknowledgment that, by and large, a business does try to do the right thing by its workers, as indeed, by and large, workers try to do the right thing by the business. I certainly accept that management—and ownership, in the case of small business—should take staff into its confidence. The last thing that I would ever want to see is someone dismissed without being given a fair hearing, so I certainly take those points. My problem is that the unfair dismissal regime is open to abuse and has become so abused that it is almost impossible to have a fair dismissal these days. There are, in fact, not many cases of dismissal that do not result in some kind of unfair dismissal action. I accept that very little of it ultimately gets to the commission, but that is because nearly all of it is settled before that point. I accept that the opposition amendments are a good faith attempt to try to make the system work better. Unfortunately, the only way, really, to make it work better, at least in respect of small business, is to get rid of it altogether, which is what the government is trying to do.I want to briefly acknowledge the various areas where the opposition amendments are an attempt to improve things. There is an attempt to get procedural improvements, which I think is an implicit acknowledgment that the system as it stands is complex. There is an attempt to get better information out to businesses, which again is an implicit acknowledgment that a lot of businesses are very ignorant about this through no fault of their own. It is easy to be ignorant of the law, particularly the workplace law, because, with the best will in the world, we do have a very complex system. The opposition amendments are designed to emphasise the importance of reinstatement. Again, I think that is an implicit acknowledgment of the dash for cash mentality which seems to underlie many of these actions. The opposition amendments are designed to set indicative time frames, which I think is an implicit acknowledgment that these actions can drag on and on, with tremendous inconvenience to small business, particularly sole proprietor small businesses. The opposition want to encourage electronic documentation. This is a perfectly good objective which seems to concede that there is far too much bureaucracy and paper shuffling. Finally, the opposition want to see more regulation of agents in a code of conduct, which is, I think, a clear admission that there are some people exploiting the system—some advisers who are exploiting the system—who are taking advantage of people's fears and vulnerabilities and who are more interested in extracting their own rent than in actually helping people in trouble.I commend the opposition on its attempt to engage with the law as it stands rather than simply oppose it, but I do think that we can take the issues which the opposition has identified as needing improvement and do rather better than these amendments. As I said earlier, I am happy to do that in a different bill in the not too distant future but not now, because of the importance of keeping faith with the government's repeated commitments to entirely remove small business from the unfair dismissal regime. The final point that the shadow minister made was that currently only about 27 per cent of small businesses come under the federal jurisdiction. I think that view is a bit restrictive, but certainly if more businesses want to come under our jurisdiction they can easily do so by negotiating AWAs or, if they are corporations, federal certified agreements. For all those reasons I acknowledge the intent of the opposition, but I believe that the bill should go forward in its existing form.Question negatived.Bill agreed to.8276Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (5.29 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills8276R1595BillsR15968276Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That this bill be now read a second time.17:30:008277Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—This afternoon we are dealing with the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. These cognate bills introduce the co-contributions scheme and reduce the surcharge on high-income earners. Labor support the co-contributions measure, with certain amendments, but do not support the measure to reduce the surcharge tax for only four per cent of working Australians. We consider the current co-contribution to be a pale imitation of the much more extensive co-contribution arrangements proposed by the ALP government in the May 1995 Saving for our future statement.Those 1995 proposals included that the government match contributions of up to three per cent of average weekly ordinary time earnings, about $1,342 per annum in current levels, which did not phase out until the member achieved a wage of twice average weekly ordinary time earnings, or $89,492 per annum currently. The current Treasurer committed an incoming coalition government to implementing the 1995 ALP co-contribution proposals. The coalition government subsequently reneged on that promise and implemented instead a savings rebate, which in turn was quickly abolished.This was a very important measure proposed by the previous Labor government. It was designed to get superannuation contributions up to a level which would ensure that people had a decent standard of living in their retirement. When it was put into the budget in 1995, it was to take effect from 1998-99 and, in that year, it was to cost the taxpayer $1,080 million. That was contained in the budget papers. When the current Treasurer decided to abolish it—in contravention of his election promise—he recorded in the document `Budget measures 1997-98', which was circulated with his budget in 1997, the following financial implications of removing it. It was going to have a cost in 1997-98 of $1 million, make savings of $1,079 million in 1998-99, save $2,414 million in 1999-2000 and save $3,980 million in 2000-01. We are now a couple of years on from that, and one could expect that the savings produced by that measure would probably be around $5 billion a year. We had a Treasurer who decided that he needed to make some public savings, and he decided to do it very much at the expense of private savings and very much at the expense of the future retirement incomes of a great many working Australians. I think it was one of the most pernicious savings options that the Treasurer took. In the previous year he had made some quite substantial savings which in the third out year were worth about $7 billion. In the subsequent budget he was very keen to hold the line, but it seems that the only way he actually held his savings line in that year was to abolish this co-contributions scheme. It is a matter of great regret to me and I think it is one of the most dreadful things that Peter Costello has done to Australians who were saving for their retirement. It is absolutely scandalous. He then proceeded to declare victory over the budget black hole that he had postulated. Having declared victory over it, he has gone on something of a spending rampage ever since.Of course, 1998 was an election year so he had to spend several billion dollars that year. Normally, treasurers who are sensible about these things take stock after they have got through an election and perhaps make some savings; but not this Treasurer. No, he went right on spending in 1999 and he went right on spending in 2000. The spending in 2001 was absolutely unbelievable; there were tens of billions of dollars spent to try to buy another election. He promised then that we were going to be in surplus after the 2001 election but, as we have found out, we are in fact in deficit by $1.3 billion in cash terms and in deficit by about $3.7 billion on an accrual basis.After 11 years of almost continuous economic growth, the Treasurer is running up deficits. He has spent every dollar he has ever saved. He has spent all of the proceeds of fiscal drag. He has spent basically everything that he can lay his hands on.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—The cupboard is bare.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—The cupboard is somewhat bare, as the member for Lowe has pointed out, and we are now dealing with a measure which is supposedly designed to give some low-income earners a co-contribution for superannuation. But it is a co-contribution that is of absolutely minuscule proportions: we are talking about a couple of hundred million dollars here. The measure that he took away some years ago was worth $4 billion then, in the last out year, and would be worth considerably more than that now.The co-contribution is an excuse for the surcharge cut. It is one of the most highly inequitable measures that have been brought in by this government. It only fully affects those on surcharge incomes of around $100,000 in 2002-03—a group that represents approximately four per cent of the working population. We need to remember that the surcharge is the Liberal government's very own tax which they introduced in 1996. They broke their promise, coming into the 1996 election, not to introduce new taxes. Mr Howard made a promise on behalf of his party on 1 February 1996 when he said:We are not going to increase existing taxes and we're not going to introduce new ones.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—They lied!83UCox, David, MPMr COX—That was a pretty clear promise—a lie, as the member for Lowe says— which they broke just six months later by announcing a new tax on superannuation. That is something else that makes this a very significant bill. At the time, the government justified the surcharge as an equity measure. Peter Costello stated in his budget speech on 20 August 1996:The measures I am announcing tonight are designed to make superannuation fairer.A major deficiency of the current system is that tax benefits for superannuation are overwhelmingly biased in favour of high income earners. How right he was! He continued:For a person on the top tax rate, superannuation is a 33 percentage point tax concession while a person earning $20 000 receives a 5 percentage point tax concession. High income earners can take added advantage through salary sacrifice arrangements that are not available to lower income earners.The Government is remedying this situation.... ... ...For high income earners the superannuation contributions will still be highly concessional but are more in line with concessions to middle and low income earners.It was an equity measure then, and reducing it is an inequity measure now.There was another important feature of Mr Costello's justification for this measure in his comments on 27 August 1996. He said:... the point I'd like to make is that on Budget night the first Treasurer in history—me—stood up and put a surcharge in respect to high income earners and applied it to himself and every other politician, you know, we're the good guys in relation to this.Where did he say this? He said this on the Midday Show, when he was dancing the macarena. He will be dancing the macarena now because he has reduced the surcharge. The iniquitous thing is that the reduction is going to provide a significant benefit for people on relatively high incomes by Australian community standards—not just treasurers. It is going to provide a benefit to all people in our profession as politicians. I think most people in the community would agree that that is fairly iniquitous.One of the biggest problems with the way this government tried to hide the fact that the surcharge was a tax was that it made it extremely difficult for superannuation funds to implement. In terms of administrative costs, the surcharge was unacceptably expensive. In its first year of operation, some superannuation funds incurred as much as 30 per cent of the revenue paid as associated administrative overhead. I do not imagine that that has gone on forever, but it was an extremely administratively expensive tax to implement. If it had been done in perhaps a more straightforward way, that problem could have been reduced for the superannuation funds and, therefore, ultimately for their beneficiaries. To that must also be added some of the collection costs incurred by the ATO and some, though much less, employer costs.The administrative burden of the surcharge means that all fund members meet increased costs regardless of their incomes. One way or another, the associated monitoring, collection and compliance costs must be met and are likely to reduce the overall accumulations of all fund members, not just those on whose behalf the surcharge is levied. Reducing the rate of the surcharge does absolutely nothing to redress the situation. If anything, a 10 per cent reduction in the surcharge rate each year for each individual surchargeable member turns up the heat on the average administrative costs.Labor's plan to cut the contributions tax is the best way to deliver higher retirement incomes to millions of working Australians. Labor have proposed two fairer options and urges the government to redirect the Treasurer's superannuation tax cut away from the few and to all the superannuation fund members who pay the contributions tax—which is, of course, all of them. Peter Costello believes it is impossible to cut the contributions tax burden. He said in a radio interview on 22 October 2001:It's pretty complicated. The taxing of contributions on the way in started back in the mid eighties ... and I think now that it's started that's going to always be with us ... So it's still better to put money into superannuation, than to take it as income. But that system having commenced 15 years ago would be incredibly complicated to unravel now.I think it would be considerably less complicated to unravel it now than to unravel the superannuation surcharge, which the Treasurer seems to believe desperately that he needs to unravel because it applies to high-income earners, whereas the contributions tax applies to all earners. We do not agree; we know that cutting the contributions tax can be done with a minimum of fuss, as confirmed by the many industry representatives we have spoken to over the last few months. Indeed, they would be very enthusiastic about cutting the contributions tax.We now have an opportunity to implement a fairer proposal which will improve the budget and boost retirement savings, but this chance will be lost if the government gets its way with these unfair changes. Labor's alternative propositions are: option 1, cut the superannuation contributions tax for all Australians who pay it from the present 15 per cent to 13 per cent; or, option 2, cut the tax to 11.5 per cent for people aged 40 and over. These are the people who are coming up to retirement who have had less time in the work force, in many cases, making superannuation contributions and who would probably benefit enormously by having their contributions tax reduced for up to the last 25 years of their working lives and would then be able to accumulate a larger nest egg for their retirement.I will give a few examples of how people will be benefited by Labor's measures. The first is Matthew, who is 20, and earns $40,000 a year over his career. He gets an extra $7,128 in a retirement nest egg under option 1 and $4,748 under option 2. Matthew would receive nothing under the Liberal government's proposal to reduce the surcharge. Another example, for someone already well into their working life, is Heather, who is 40 and earns $60,000 a year over the rest of her career. She gets an extra $4,069 under option 1 and $7,122 under option 2. Heather would receive nothing under the proposal to reduce the surcharge. These examples are in present value, so they reflect the value in today's terms. The benefits would be substantially more in the dollars of the future. These outcomes provide a powerful incentive for Australians to invest in their own future, helping us to cope with our future needs. The Labor package for a fairer superannuation system is revenue neutral. This is achieved by opposing the reduction in the superannuation surcharge and the proposal to allow the splitting of superannuation contributions, which effectively doubles the 2002-03 reasonable benefit limits of $1,124,384 for pensions or $562,195 for lump sums, which we expect to see in another superannuation bill in the spring sittings.The government's response to the ALP's plan was almost immediate. They did not like it because it meant they had to start arguing that a tax cut to the select few was better than a tax cut to millions of working Australians. So they chose a different route; they went with what they thought would be much easier: they said that Labor got the figures wrong. During the estimates process, Treasury officials admitted they had made mistake after mistake in that 17 May costing, yet they still refuse to hand over the revised costings they gave the Treasurer when they realised just how wrong they had it. Even now, five months later, the government will not allow Treasury to publicly correct the record and release the figures which would prove our plan is affordable. Since we exposed the Treasury costings for the fraud they were, the government have fallen pretty much silent. They do not seem interested in debating the measure anymore, and we all know why: it is pretty hard to enter into an argument about how it is better to cut taxes to the top four per cent of taxpayers than to cut them for millions of working Australians. Unfortunately, it appears that the Democrats will argue the surcharge tax cut for them. After a spectacular backflip in September, the Australian Democrats are set to deliver the rich a massive tax windfall while leaving millions of Australians with nothing. The deal offered by Senator Cherry on the government's superannuation package will still see a cut to the super surcharge tax that applies only to those on more than $90,500 per year. While a smaller cut to the surcharge in return for a more generous voluntary co-contribution is an improvement on the government's package, it remains grossly unfair compared to Labor's alternative: a cut in the contributions tax to benefit all super fund members who pay it.Under the Democrat proposal the affluent are all guaranteed a tax cut. Those earning $46,000 or less will receive a contribution from government only if they voluntarily make additional contributions to superannuation. Treasury estimates indicate that only 75,000 Australians will receive the full co-contribution, even under the Democrats' new proposal. This is out of the more than five million working Australians who should be eligible but simply do not have the money left over after servicing their mortgages, feeding their families and paying the bills. It is an absolutely typical measure by this government. It promises something to a group of people on relatively low incomes and, when the people on low incomes read the fine print, they find that they are not eligible or, in this case, not financially able to take advantage of what the government is purporting to offer them.The only justification Senator Cherry could offer for cutting the surcharge is that it is an administrative nightmare. Everyone knows that. Cutting the tax rate does not solve that problem; in fact, it makes it worse in average administrative terms. Democrat senators have previously staunchly opposed this tax cut for the rich, including on 27 June 2002, when they supported a Labor motion calling on the government to withdraw the measure. I expect the Democrats to keep their commitment, but doubtless they will not.The inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation into these bills heard many submissions that raised concerns in relation to the effectiveness and equity of the proposed co-contribution scheme, as well as in relation to access to the co-contribution by particular groups of persons and the administrative costs of the proposals. The Labor Party is concerned about submissions to the committee that the proposed co-contribution arrangements leave considerable scope for abuse, in that comparatively well-off people will be making contributions in respect of family members in part-time employment. The ability of single or sole breadwinners in the salary target range to afford to make contributions to superannuation in order to qualify for the matching co-contribution is untested and, as attested to before the committee, unlikely for most in that range. The number of people estimated to receive the full $1,000 is only 75,000, according to evidence provided by ASFA. This is from a total pool of 4.4 million people with incomes of less than $32,500, according to ATO evidence.Another important consideration is the government's announcement on 20 June that they intended to remove the surcharge reduction amendments from the superannuation bills they had before the Senate at the time and shift them to the bills we are considering today. Senator Coonan stated that change was due to the government's desire to highlight the fact that the government's superannuation initiatives were designed as a balanced set of measures. That is, it was a blatant political stunt which was aimed at trying to justify their unfair tax cut to the well-off by pretending the measure was linked to co-contributions. This is a complete furphy. If the government were serious about helping those most in need of assistance in accumulating a retirement nest egg, they would have placed the co-contributions measures in separate bills.Against that background, the Labor Party will move an amendment to the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill to include in the legislation a provision that would require the government to closely monitor the operation of the co-contribution arrangements. The purpose is to ensure that only those who are genuinely in need receive the co-contribution and to establish the proportion of the target group who are accessing the co-contribution. I have to say, based on the government's previous performance of not releasing Treasury's revised costings of our measures, I think it is very unlikely that we will get satisfaction from the government on this amendment. In relation to the surcharge, I will move the amendment, circulated in my name, to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 requesting that the government withdraw these bills from the House, remove the unfair proposals and replace them with the ALP's fairer superannuation plan. If the government will not do this, I intend to move further amendments to the bills which will specifically oppose the reduction in the surcharge. I urge the members of this House to support my amendments.17:53:008281Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I rise to speak on the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I know you cannot comment on the remarks made previously by one of our colleagues, but I am sure that there would be no way a person of your status and standing could possibly agree with those remarks. The industry and commentators in all areas have remarked on the commonsense of the government in moving to assist in two important areas that are affected by superannuation, these being the overtaxing and the overcommitment of people. The government is moving on a commitment it made over 12 months ago to assist people at both ends of the spectrum as far superannuation is concerned.The Australian Labor Party want to pick bits out of the legislation and to add bits. If it is so bad, let it go through and let the government wear the criticism. The Labor Party should do that. The Labor Party have painted a picture of how unfair this process is. They are going to fiddle with it, negotiate with the Democrats, as they have indicated, and try to effect change to it. They seem to be saying that it is grossly unfair and that it very much favours the wealthy. They are not quite the words that the Labor Party used, but that appears to be what they think. They want to increase the advantage for the lower end and completely readjust the government's program, despite what commentators right across the board have said. There is an almost unanimous point of view as to the fairness of what the government is proposing, but the Labor Party think that it is grossly unfair. My comment is that if it is grossly unfair, the community will see that and the Labor Party will have a wonderful platform to run to the election with. They will be able to make great play in an election campaign of how unfair these proposals are. The Labor Party should not play with amendments; they should just let this process carry on and then they will be able to say to the Australian community, `We told you this was bad. It has turned out to be bad and you should not, as a community, support the government.'The package that we are dealing with today is part of A Better Superannuation System, which was announced on 5 November 2001. The government contribution is expected to increase the numbers of low-income earners making personal superannuation contributions. The government contribution will replace the existing taxation rebate for personal superannuation contributions made by low-income earners. The co-contribution will be more generous than the rebate it is replacing. The maximum co-contribution of $1,000 compares with the maximum rebate of $100. That is a very substantial increase. The government co-contribution will match personal superannuation contributions made on or after 1 July 2002 by eligible people with incomes of less than $32,500. That is what this legislation is about. That will mean that the maximum contribution of $1,000 will be payable to those with an income of $20,000 or less. The maximum contribution will reduce by 8c for each $1 of income over $20,000, with a sliding scale of contribution finally vanishing at $32,500. A minimum co-contribution of $20 will also apply, as long as the person is below the income threshold and has made some personal superannuation contributions during the year.This is a marvellous program of support that links in with a package of superannuation reform that the government has been undertaking. Why is this necessary? The Treasurer released the Intergenerational Report at the time of the last budget. That report tells us that the proportion of the population that is ageing is expected to increase and that the proportion of the budget spent on the age pension will increase from the current 2.9 per cent of GDP to 4.6 per cent of GDP by the year 2042. That imposes a huge policy challenge which, it appears, the Australian Labor Party are unwilling to tackle. I have read Senator Sherry's proposals. The proposals being put forward by the Labor Party in no way tackle the long-term problems of superannuation investment in Australia; they seem to fiddle with government policy. The Labor Party hope to attract votes through the changes that Senator Sherry wants to make. One of the biggest criticisms that can be made of the current opposition by the community—and the way the opposition are figuring in public support indicates this—is that they have not done the hard yards as far as policy development is concerned. The community is not attracted to policies that fiddle with the current government's policies. The Labor Party think that they are going to score with the proposals put forward by Senator Sherry, but that will not happen.The OECD economic survey on Australia, released in August last year, found that:Australia's age pension and superannuation systems combine to provide Australians, especially low income earners, with replacement rates above frequently-used benchmarks.It reported that:Replacement income rates are expected to rise over time as the superannuation element matures.That is a good report, and that is good news. It indicates that we have a world-class superannuation system and retirement package. But the government feels—and rightly so— that more should be done. Most Australians feel there is more to be done. The package presented by the government prior to the last election was designed to encourage an attitude in Australians of saving and preparing for the future, because of the demographic changes so well identified by the Intergenerational Report. Unless we do that and start to make a move soon, the impost on future generations of Australians of sudden changes will be most severe. It seems to be the purpose of the Australian Labor Party to delay those changes by obstruction, which is forcing the government into more and more difficult budgetary decisions instead of allowing it to plan and prepare for the future in a rational and sensible way. The government is spending $28.7 million over four years to undertake an education campaign to ensure that employees, employers, and superannuation funds and their members understand these changes. I think the government must do that. Australians need to understand that change is inevitable and that it is better to prepare for it in an orderly and measured way than to have it foisted on them suddenly.Changes not dealt with in this legislation but part of the total package include choice and portability of funds. Senator Sherry makes some remarks about that in the Labor Party's policy, in particular about disclosure, about choice requiring portability and about the safety and preservation of superannuation funds. He says that the forward agenda for superannuation needs to be given serious attention. In a recent submission to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, the Department of the Treasury concluded:The SG in combination with the Age Pension can produce replacement rates in excess of 60 per cent for—Australians on median earnings—of 25, 30 and 40 years ...That was a significant contribution, as was legislation passed already in this House to change the upper age rate at which people may work and continue to make personal contributions to superannuation from 70 to 75 years. Broadly, that is the package the government has prepared.The measures currently before the House have been noted by the Investment and Financial Services Association Chief Executive Officer, Richard Gilbert, who said:Passing this bill could relieve burdens on two heavily taxed groups at opposite ends of the income scale.This was one of the organisations I was referring to when I said that the industry is enthusiastic about the goals that these changes will achieve. The government has already agreed to changes to the minimum wage eligibility for superannuation entitlements—that it be no longer $450 a month but $1,350 a quarter—despite some claims that there would be increased administrative costs. The CEO of the Investment and Financial Services Association says:It is a sensible result and it ensures savings are both widened and deepened.That is just one of the many comments made about the decision to give people on low incomes the opportunity to enter superannuation schemes. The legislation also removes the disincentive for those at the upper end of the income scale. The superannuation surcharge—which was part of a government strategy in desperate times to cover a terrible budgetary inheritance from the Australian Labor Party—was put in place to recover the budget, which it did successfully. Now is the time to relieve of the penalty the people whom we want to encourage to invest in the institutions which put so much back into Australia—the superannuation funds.The Australian Labor Party would rather people at the upper end of the income scale invested in things other than superannuation, but they have got it wrong. We need to encourage people at all income levels to invest in superannuation because the return, measured over a period of years, is much more satisfactory for the future economic development of Australia than investment in real estate. If the Australian Labor Party were to bring about the changes they are talking about, they would discourage those at the upper end of the income range from investing in superannuation. That is wrong. They have not devised a process which is logical, which hangs together and which would allow all income groups to invest fairly and properly in superannuation.Over a period of time, the government have changed the superannuation guarantee from eight to nine per cent, increased the age limit for personal undeducted contributions from 70 to 75 years of age and permitted contributions of up to $3,000 in a three-year period per child under 18 years. These are enlightened processes which will encourage people into the superannuation system. We have increased the deductions for super contributions for self-employed people and, from next July, employer contributions will switch from annual to quarterly contributions. The Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill has been on hold. It should have been passed back in July, but it has been delayed because of the games being played in the committees of the Senate and because of problems with the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party seem to blame the Australian Democrats for everything, but the fact is that the Labor Party are the initiators of resistance. They are the initiators of the wish to obstruct. Without the Australian Labor Party, the Democrats could do very little in the Senate. The co-contribution for low-income earners will see the government match the $1,000 deposits of those earning less than $20,000, while the contribution will be reduced to nil for those earning $32,500. The surcharge will be reduced for upper income earners from 15 to 11.5 per cent over three years. It defies logic that the Australian Labor Party are going to move an in principle amendment saying that this proposal is wrong but that they are then going to move detailed amendments. It is obvious that this proposal is going to strike trouble again in the committees of the Senate, and I think that that is an inappropriate and improper way of dealing with something as important as retirement benefits. It is wrong that a total package, part of which has passed the parliament, should be held up for the sake of the perverse attitudes of a few senators. We need to have a comprehensive approach to saving. It seems that the Australian Labor Party are encouraging the government to deal with low-income earners—and we should. I think it is a great proposal, but we need to keep high-income earners within the scope of superannuation as well. We should not be encouraging them to look for other packages and other investments. There is no compulsion for higher income people to have superannuation. The surcharge is a limitation on them, and I believe that if they were relieved of that surcharge over a period of time people would reinvest in superannuation. That would be beneficial to the funds, to future investment and to the advancement of Australia, as well as to the individuals and their families. The nation will benefit from the process. I recommend the legislation. I reject the arguments that I have heard today from the Australian Labor Party. They are not cohesive. They are mishmash; they are fiddling at the margin. They are not a comprehensive approach to superannuation and they should be rejected. 18:10:008284Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—In the words of my inimitable predecessor, that speech was enough to make a cat laugh. When we come to the question of planning a future for Australia, as we do in the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002, the Liberal Party are the second lot out of the blocks. Superannuation in Australia, in its modern form, was put together by the former Treasurer of the Commonwealth and former member for Blaxland Paul Keating. He was the one who put together a process whereby we now have nine per cent of people covered under the superannuation guarantee. If it were not for the government and one of their first acts, that nine per cent would have been 12 per cent. That is where we were heading in terms of what we thought was a reasonable place to finish— except for another three per cent on top. The final goal under the former Labor government was not just three per cent, six per cent or nine per cent—the current government were compelled to take it from eight to nine per cent; they could not get out of that—but from nine to 12 per cent and then from 12 to 15 per cent. It is enough to make a cat laugh to think that this government are actually talking about a coherent set of policies with regard to super. Coherent, rational, sensible and well thought out? I would not put any of those adjectives anywhere near what the government have done with regard to super. Through all of the years that the coalition government were in opposition, one by one their members condemned Labor's approach to super. They condemned the super guarantee charge and they complained that it was taking too long to get a majority of the work force involved in super. When we put the super guarantee into place, we tried to do it on a totally voluntary basis. I can remember the implementation extremely well. It took an enormous amount of time to try to convince ordinary working people that it was to their benefit to be participants in the super guarantee. In the end, we had to legislate for their benefit. If we had not done it, participation would not be three per cent, six per cent or—as it is now—nine per cent. And, if we do not get back into government, it will not get to 12 or 15 per cent. Proper planning and a proper regime that will adequately take care of the superannuation needs of the Australian work force will not come from what this government now have in place. It is entirely laughable for the member for Mitchell to argue, as he did at the end of his speech, just before he got to the fact that there was a bit in it for low-income earners, that if these changes are made over the next three years—the changes that the government are proposing are a bit of a slide down from a 15 per cent surcharge: 1½ per cent a year in 2002-03, another 1½ per cent the next year and another 1½ per cent the year after that—maybe people on higher incomes might start putting their money back into super. It was the current Treasurer's dopey idea in the first place to whack on the superannuation surcharge. The 15 per cent that he imposed on those who were at the highest level meant that a vast majority of those people walked out of super altogether. The government achieved their aim in terms of putting up what they thought was a terrific thing because of the criticism they had had. It thought it was a terrific thing to say, `Look at us: aren't we different? Aren't we substantially hairy-chested because we are going to knock the people at the top, we are going to put this surcharge on, and won't they cop it in the neck?' When they did, they made their choices very apparent—they walked from the super system. To argue, as the member for Mitchell did, that if you knock it back from 15 per cent to 10 per cent they might come charging back and start investing in super rather than in other areas, you would have to be a bit soft in the head in economic terms to actually think that that might be the case.This Treasurer, for political purposes, decided he would play his games in regard to super. This is the Treasurer who argued that what the Labor Party had done in the super guarantee charge was pushed towards the top end. This is the Treasurer who selectively said that the Australian Labor Party had not done enough for people in the middle and at the bottom. Of course, he is joined in that by the former Liberal Treasurer and member for Bennelong—and we all remember what his record as Treasurer was. The current Treasurer makes a snide allusion almost every question time—he has been a bit quiet in the last couple of weeks; we can understand why—to what Labor's history supposedly is in a particular area. But it always occurs to me—and I often interject to this effect, remembering a bit of the history of this—that, in the allusions about interest rates and all the rest, there is a sideward barb into the Prime Minister.This bloke thinks that he is the best that there has ever been about the place, that he has got the record as Treasurer that the member for Bennelong never had. What did the member for Bennelong end up with when we came in in 1983? Double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment and double-digit interest rates. That is a trifecta that nobody else has been able to get up. You can accuse the Labor Party of all you want in terms of interest rates or unemployment or anything else, but no Labor Treasurer, as far as I know, has been able to get that threesome up. When the Prime Minister says, `Isn't it terrible: the unemployment rates we had under Labor were so high,' they only just pipped what he was able to do as Treasurer. Certainly interest rates were bad, and we wanted them to come down earlier. Let us cast our minds back to the period when he was Treasurer. I remember the `cocktail loans' that people had to get—the combination loans: when you got the loan from the bank it had to be topped up by a loan from the building society. Interest rates were running well over 18 per cent when you put the two elements of the cocktail together. But the Treasurer has that little dig, that little bit of an aside, and the Prime Minister reddens up a bit. He knows there has been a little bit of a dig at him. This Prime Minister's prime ministership is about trying to make up for all the deficits he had as Treasurer.Not once in opposition did the Prime Minister ever say that he supported the superannuation guarantee. In opposition, this lot said they were against it. They said that enough was being done by what had already been provided to people from companies and government departments, that more money should not be expended from the Commonwealth. They fought against the super guarantee charge tooth and nail, budget after budget. In those budgets where we introduced changes to directly benefit people on lower and middle incomes, they criticised us because we had targeted the assistance that was going to be given.It is critically important to understand that the current system we have is a Labor Party system. What has been placed on top of it is the head of this system, where it would have grown to, the upper part of the body of the system—a system that is so substantial at nine per cent of moneys going in that it is the fundamental bedrock for our future investment. If it had been allowed to grow to 12 and then to 15 per cent, the moneys available for investment in Australia would have provided enormous ballast in the economic system and in the stock market area. That ballast would have flowed over from blue chips down to the second and third levels and would have provided for much greater Australian participation in owning our own companies and providing a means on which we could build a platform to compete more effectively with the rest of the world. But, most importantly, this was about provision for the future.It is entirely laughable that anybody could believe the member for Mitchell when he says the Labor Party have not done any planning and have no policy in this area and that it is unacceptable that they do not want to do it. We have already indicated that we will support what is proposed here for people on low incomes. There is a cost to the Treasury, to the tax department, in this. If you look at what the current provision is where there is a rebate, it is $10 million a year, year on year. In this new proposal we are looking at $95 million in the first year, $100 million in the second year and about $105 million in 2005-06. This is in the order of 10 to one. This helps people on lower incomes more, at a ratio of 10 to one. We are looking at an all-up cost here, if you run the three together, of nearly $300 million for people on low incomes. Isn't it passing strange that it is $300 million that the government have proposed in this bill to go to people on low incomes where people can contribute $1,000? They used to get a $100 rebate—that is the current situation. Here, what they are saying is: if you earn up to $20,000, you can put in $1,000 and they will match it dollar for dollar. Okay, good—it is a sensible approach for people on low incomes because they cannot adequately provide for their future. But here the government are also thinking of the pension moneys that they would be directly paying out. Above that they have a sliding scale, of a reduction of 8c in the dollar for every extra dollar up to $32,500. But about $300 million worth of cost to the revenue? I wonder what the situation is at the other end. What is the cost, do you think, to the revenue for the surcharge that the government wants to change by 1½ per cent a year for three years? Three hundred and seventy million dollars. Isn't it strange: almost equivalent— $70 million in it. They will be able to say, `We are treating the top and tail pretty much equally.' There is a much greater effect for those people at the bottom with the least capacity to look after themselves and to provide for their future when you compare them to people at the top.Another comment by the member for Mitchell on planning for the future and the Intergenerational Report was that the Labor Party were terrible people—that we were going to try to delay by obstruction. If this bill goes to the Senate and we do not support it there and the others do not support it there, we would delay $370 million going into the coffers of the taxation department. That is what our obstruction would lead to—$370 million more to do good for the people of Australia. In fact, almost equivalently, you could directly provide the $300 million worth of consideration that is being given here in assistance to people on low incomes if you kept the surcharge as it is.When the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Crean, gave his response to the budget— from memory, two days after budget night— he said, `We will take what the government wants to do here, knocking down the higher income surcharge people. For the same amount of money, we have a different proposal, and the guts of that proposal is that we would be able to spread savings for people throughout the superannuation system, not just for those people at the top with the surcharge, and reduce the costs to them.' I will quote what he said, because this proposal is substantial:Our alternative propositions for the use of the money are these: we can redirect the money earmarked for the few into cutting the superannuation tax for all Australians from the present 15 per cent to 13 per cent; or we can cut the tax to 11½ per cent for people over 40 years of age—the age when most people start getting serious about planning for their retirement. The last option would mean a cut of more than 25 per cent in superannuation contributions tax. It would add many thousands of dollars to everyone's retirement income whilst still being economically responsible. It would be a powerful incentive for Australians to invest in their own future, helping us to cope with our future needs. It is a fairer alternative.I utterly endorse everything that he says there. There are other ways to do this. There are ways to do it that are not partial, that are not targeted to just that group of people at the top that this Treasurer decided to slug. He has decided to try to give them some kind of incentive to come back into the super system—or to make it look like the government is not being particularly harsh to people at the top.If you look at the background materials to this bill, the Bills Digest—where the response of the Leader of the Opposition was quoted from—pulls no punches. If you remember, when the surcharge came in there was a cacophony from the industry, saying, `This is simply absurd, this is completely atrocious, this is really stupid. What you're imposing on the industry is the most insane and inane set of procedures, which will cost the superannuation industry money, time and effort and create turmoil—to very little effect, because you're going to lose so many people because of the surcharge.' The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation was looking into this bill, and the Bills Digest says that what the committee noted mostly was:... its complex administration, clumsy assessment procedures and on-going administration costs that are borne not just by high income earners, but all superannuation fund members.You would think that maybe, after that tidal wave of angst from the super community, this government might just listen to them on the practical problems of implementation. It has been a couple of years now, and have they learnt? No, they kept that in place. You would think that they might adopt a different model when they are looking at the other bill that we have here that deals with low-income earners. You would think it might just be possible that, having copped the problem, they might have decided that there were other ways of going about it—but what did they do instead? They said, `We are going to do this; that will be $300 million.' As the Bills Digest points out, there is a bit of a problem with this:The Bill entrenches aspects of the superannuation surcharge by using its reporting system in the collection of information for assessing entitlement to Government co-contribution.A reporting system that is a dud and has been known to be a dud—a complex dud—from the very start. The BillsDigest continues:The superannuation surcharge has been criticised for its complex administration, clumsy assessment procedures and on-going administration costs that are borne not just by high income earners, but all superannuation fund members. Basing the Government co-contribution information provisions on the superannuation surcharge information collection and reporting mechanisms entrenches a much maligned and inefficient surcharge administration system.Should we be surprised, though? Not with this government. They obviously do not take much notice of what their advisers might be telling them—what the people who have their heads screwed on in the Treasury and taxation departments might say about simplicity when it comes to the operation of the tax system and putting new systems in place. For both those who copped the surcharge and those who might benefit from this provision, you have to look at efficient ways of going about it to ensure that the revenue for the Commonwealth and the benefit to people that is supposed to come as a result of these changes is actually maximised. But we have seen example after example of a government that has not a blind clue about super and about what steps should be taken to have adequate income provision for the future through super in conjunction with the pension system.If the government wants to argue that the Intergenerational Report is the basis for the changes that should be made, I have a message for the member for Mitchell and for the others: go back a generation—Labor was there before you. Labor was planning in this area and in the area of home and community care and aged care for the problems that would become manifest in the future and that needed to be properly dealt with. When we come back into government, we will clean up the inane, scrambled mess that has been created in the super area by this government. Right now we will support the measures in relation to the lower-income people but we will vote against this attempt to squeeze out of that dumb decision on the surcharge that the Treasurer made in the first place.We will show that good policy is built on solid foundations. It is not built on the quicksand of a quick grab in the media and it is not built on the quicksand of the easy approach—running up a few symbols and trying to get measures into place that can be simply covered by flash words. Flash words will not help you when you are trying to put together a substantial system for Australia's future. You need planning, you need a sensible approach and you need to listen to the community, whether it is a community of people with a vested interest, such as those who have access to the rebate system at the bottom—the low-income earners, who here will get 10 times as much if they are earning $20,000 or less—(Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.Sitting suspended from 6.31 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills8288R16688288Bill—by leave—presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.828820:00:008288Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The tragic events in Bali on 12 October have brought home to all Australians the horrors that human beings can inflict on others. They have shown that none of us is immune from the suffering that the evil of terrorism can bring. The government is committed to helping the victims of that tragedy.The Australian Federal Police and the Indonesian National Police have established a Joint Australia-Indonesia Police Investigative Team to investigate the Bali bombings and to bring the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice.The government has also made Australia's new national DNA-matching systems at CrimTrac available to ensure that the process of disaster victim identification is completed as quickly as possible. This process of victim identification has commenced, with state and territory police services now collecting samples from the relatives of those who are missing. The use of the CrimTrac DNA-matching systems will enable the deceased to be released to grieving relatives and brought home to Australia as soon as possible.The government has also offered CrimTrac to facilitate disaster victim identification for the Indonesian government and other nations who lost people in the Bali attack.This is a bill to ensure that CrimTrac and Australian officials are able to fully utilise the forensic procedures that are available to them for these purposes.Part 1D of the Crimes Act 1914 establishes a national DNA database system which is designed to enable DNA profiles taken from forensic material to be compared with other DNA profiles. The database consists of a series of indexes. For example, there is a suspects index, a serious offenders index, a crime scene index, a missing persons index and an unknown deceased persons index.The DNA profiles are stored on these separate indexes and they can be matched with profiles in another index according to a set of tabulated matching rules. For example, it enables DNA profiles taken from unidentified deceased persons to be compared with DNA profiles taken from property that belonged to persons who are missing or from a blood relative of such a person.As the CrimTrac DNA database was established for criminal investigation and not for disaster victim identification, it is now imperative that legislation be passed so that the CrimTrac system can be used for victim identification for the Bali incident.The Australian community expects us to do everything possible to reunite relatives and friends with the victims of this attack as quickly as possible.It is essential that this national database can be accessed to enable the full, efficient and automatic comparison of DNA profiles that is necessary to resolve the Bali tragedy. This bill will ensure that this can occur immediately.Part 1D contains a number of safeguards in relation to access to and use of information held on the DNA database. There are also restrictions on the disclosure of that information. These provisions are critical to maintaining the integrity of that DNA database and to ensure a balance between the needs of law enforcement with the privacy of those involved.Part 1D provides that the ability of the Commonwealth, states and territories to share information held on the DNA database is to be facilitated by arrangements in place between the jurisdictions.While there has been progress in relation to the settlement of those arrangements, they are not as yet in place.This bill represents the immediate solution that is necessary now to address the extraordinary circumstances posed by the Bali bombings. This bill will modify the existing laws so that Commonwealth, state and territory officials can access the national DNA database for the purpose of identifying an unidentified person who died in or as a result of the bombings that occurred in Bali on 12 October 2002 or for the purpose of conducting a criminal investigation in relation to that incident. This bill will also enable the information held on a DNA database to be disclosed to law enforcement agencies, foreign law enforcement agencies and Interpol for the purpose of identifying an unidentified person who died in or as a result of the bombings that occurred in Bali on 12 October 2002 or for the purpose of conducting a criminal investigation in relation to that incident. There is a need to include foreign law enforcement agencies to remove any doubt about this being covered by the existing provisions.The provisions of this bill will operate to modify the existing restrictions in existing legislation.The amendments to enable disclosure of information to foreign law enforcement agencies will enable disclosure of the identity of persons who are residents or citizens of that country when they have been identified following DNA profile matchings undertaken by the Australian authorities.The bill also makes the important amendment to enable the identification of a victim to be provided to a relative, guardian, spouse, de facto partner or friend of that victim.The situation in which we now find ourselves was simply not envisaged when the DNA database provisions were added to the Crimes Act. Part 1D does not, for example, enable the DNA profile taken from the deceased unknown index to be compared with a DNA profile from the same index. The extent of the devastation in Bali has necessitated that this comparison be available, and this bill will ensure that this is the case.This bill is an emergency measure. However, none of us can predict what might lie ahead. For this reason there is provision in the bill for these special provisions to be activated by way of a ministerial determination should Australian citizens or residents be killed in a similar incident outside Australia and it is appropriate in the circumstances for these modifications to apply. This determination will be a disallowable instrument.The bill also includes a provision requiring an independent review of the operation of the proposed provisions. This is a safeguard ensuring that there is proper independent oversight of the proposed regime. In commending the bill to the House, I thank the opposition—the member for Banks in particular—for their agreement to expedite the processing of this bill. I present the explanatory memorandum for the bill.Leave granted for the second reading debate to continue forthwith.20:08:008290Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The terrible losses suffered by the families, friends and communities of the victims of the Bali bombings are compounded by the process of identifying the bodies. The harrowing images from Bali show just how difficult that process will be. Labor are committed to working with the government to find ways of speeding up that process. We are committed to helping families and friends in whatever way we can to come to terms with their loss, and that means allowing them to bring home the bodies, to bury their loved ones and to grieve. That is why we worked in a spirit of cooperation with the government when we were approached late last night by Senator Ellison's office about the Crimes Amendment Bill 2002 that is now before the House.Australian officials are assisting with the identification of the victims of the bombing in Bali and with the investigation of the offences. This involves collecting and analysing forensic material. That material, in turn, provides DNA profiles that can be matched against other DNA profiles. The government advised us last night that the Australian Federal Police currently has the capacity to analyse 3,000 DNA samples a year. The problem is that the Bali investigation will probably require the analysis of at least 10,000 samples. We understand that the AFP does not have the capacity to do all the DNA sampling, analysis and profiling of relatives, missing persons and deceased persons without assistance from the states and territories. To assist in this process, some state police forces have already started taking and analysing samples. However, under current legislative arrangements, samples cannot be matched until enabling legislation has been passed. Labor share the government's concerns to remove any delays in the identification and release of remains to families, and that is exactly what this bill aims to do.It is also necessary to clarify the disclosure provisions around the information that is gathered from DNA samples collected in Bali. In essence, then, this bill is about removing some obstacles that currently prevent DNA information from being entered into a newly created disaster victim database. That new database has been created alongside the national CrimTrac criminal DNA database, but it is an entirely separate database. We have been given absolute assurances by the government that the two will be quarantined from each other and that there will be no sharing of information between them.The amendments in this bill are designed to override state and territory legislation, which requires ministerial arrangements to be in place. They will have immediate operation only in relation to the Bali bombing. The legislation applies only to terrorist incidents overseas. It will act retrospectively to the date of the Bali bombing. The government has included in the proposed legislation some provisions that will allow it to use DNA from Bali in any criminal investigation aimed at finding the people responsible for the bombing. The opposition believes that the inclusion of those clauses in this bill is appropriate. In the event of a similar incident overseas—and I sincerely hope that we will never face such horror again—it is proposed that the legislation may apply in future cases where the minister issues a determination.However, there are some concerns. I mentioned earlier that Labor supports any moves that will help families and friends come to terms with their loss and to bury their loved ones. The DNA database will help in identifying the bodies and in the difficult task of identifying body parts. But the whole issue of DNA records and the storage of that information is an important one for the community. The Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Health Ethics Committee recently warned that we need a tighter system to control the collection and use of DNA records. On August 28, these organisations put out a joint news release where they warned:The revolution in genetic science means that Australia now requires a careful mix of strategies—stronger ethical oversight, stiffer regulations, industry codes, education campaigns, an independent expert advisory body, revised privacy and discrimination laws, and perhaps even new criminal laws—to ensure human genetic information is well protected and intelligently used.The President of the Law Reform Commission, Professor David Weisbrot, said that rapid advances in genetic science mean these issues now impact on every Australian. He said:Today a person's DNA can be used for identification, to test for illness, and to help predict that person's future health and well-being. Your DNA can talk about you, your family and your community, so the implications of this are almost endless ... We hear about using DNA for health and medical research, and for law enforcement. However, we also need to consider the activities of insurance companies, employers, sporting associations, government authorities, and in the courts.It is in the context of these broader concerns about DNA testing and privacy—and the fact that we are still finding our way on this issue—that Labor suggested to the government last night that the power of the minister to use these powers in future should be a disallowable instrument, which is an effective tool to allow parliament to make sure these powers are used properly. Labor also suggested that these new laws be reviewed in 12 months. The government has agreed to both these requests and they have been incorporated into the legislation before us.I commend the government for the way that we did engage in that constructive dialogue and the way in which they picked it up. Too often we hear about areas where we disagree. Through the way in which this process was commenced by the office of the Minister for Justice and Customs and in which it progressed through contact with our office, we have ended up with what I think is appropriate legislation which gets the balance right. I do commend the government and the minister's office for it. I repeat: too often we do not hear the examples of where there is cooperation between both sides of the House. I think the legislation is better for the government having picked up those suggestions.In a briefing today from the Attorney-General's Department, also in the justice minister's office, we were assured by the government that the existing privacy protections built into the national DNA database will also flow to the disaster victim database, and that is appropriate. In closing, let me again extend my sympathies to the families and friends of those who died in Bali. I sincerely hope that this law will hasten the identification of bodies and allow those who have been left behind to grieve their terrible loss. I commend the bill to the House and ensure the government of the opposition's continued support for the speedy passage of this legislation through both houses of parliament.20:16:008291Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I thank the member for Banks for his constructive approach on this very important issue, the Crimes Amendment Bill 2002. It is interesting that he made reference to the ALRC-AHEC discussion paper, which was issued a couple of months ago. I agree that dealing with genetic material and what use may be made of it is an extremely difficult subject. The very thickness of that paper—it is a very substantial document—indicates that there are many issues to be addressed. It is also appropriate that he referred to the impact of privacy obligations.Australians must continue to work together, regardless of their differences in responding to the Bali tragedy. This legislation is a small measure that we can take to assist with the process of identifying the victims and helping to bring some closure to their relatives and friends. The bill represents an essential measure that will enable us to deal nationally with part of the tragic legacy of 12 October. It will enable us to act nationally in our efforts to identify the victims. The amendments will also facilitate Australian officials contributing to the important task of identifying those who were responsible. I, too, extend my sympathy and condolences to relatives of those who were killed or who are missing. My sympathy and best wishes for a speedy recovery to those who were injured. I commend the bill to the House.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.8292Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney—Attorney-General) (8.16 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills8292R1595BillsR15968292Debate resumed.20:19:008292Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise to support the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. The bills basically involve the low-income earners contribution, which the government took to the electorate prior to the last election, and also the reduction of the superannuation surcharge rates, which will see them stepping down by 1½ per cent over each of the next three years. That is the purpose of these two bills. As I mention, they are enacting government election commitments. Before getting into the bodies of the bills, I would like to reflect on some of the remarks the member for Blaxland made in his contribution prior to our meal break for the evening. It is sad that sometimes a speech that seems designed to appeal to a branch meeting of the Labor Party comes in here masquerading as a thoughtful, considered contribution in a parliamentary debate. There are a number of things which the member for Blaxland said for which there is no evidence offered by him—none that can be located— that actually supports his claims. One of the two central claims from the member for Blaxland was that the Howard government has no superannuation policy, and I will come to that shortly. It seemed quite ironic, given the debate that we were having and the contribution which his speech was supposed to address. The other claim was that all we were doing was basically maintaining the Labor Party system. His conclusion from those two lines of argument was to support the Labor Party's decision to oppose these bills, which would seem in direct contradiction to the arguments he put forward. That is probably fortunate, because those arguments are spurious and I will outline why they are spurious. Firstly, if we had the Labor system that the member for Blaxland was arguing we have in place, we would not be talking about reducing the superannuation surcharge. I have not met anybody, in my seven years as an elected representative, that is fond of the superannuation surcharge. Nobody likes it. I do not even think that many people from the government go around proclaiming its virtue.If we looked back to the time that surcharge was introduced, we would recall that it was part of a bundle of measures designed to address the black hole, the $10.3 billion budget deficit, that the Howard government inherited when it was elected in 1996. That was a $10.3 billion deficit on the back of assurances by the then Labor Treasurer and the Labor leadership, including the current Leader of the Opposition, that the budget was in surplus. I do not know anybody that actually believed that, but no-one had a real handle on the extent of the deficit. When the Howard government was elected it found there was a $10.3 billion deficit—$10.3 billion in one fiscal year gone on the Commonwealth Bankcard. The Howard government rightly sought to rectify that unsustainable financial position that the Labor Party had shifted the Commonwealth budget into in a very short time. The Prime Minister's undertaking at the time recognised what an enormous challenge of fiscal repair there was before the nation and before this parliament, and his government—a government of which I am very pleased to be a small part—was able to share the pain. I remember the debates in this House quite vividly, shortly after the 1996 election, when we were working out how to recover that deficit. The undertaking the Prime Minister and the Treasurer gave the nation was that everybody would make a contribution. The undertaking was that not one section of our community would be immune from making a contribution to repair the budget.The superannuation surcharge targeted higher income earners. The superannuation surcharge added 15 per cent to contributions by people with an income above about $95,000—if my memory serves me correctly—on top of the 15 per cent superannuation tax that is paid. It was a revenue-raising measure. It was defensible in terms of equalising the benefits gained by Australian wage and salary earners in making sure that the discount on tax paid for superannuation contributions was not so inequitable. The 15 per cent tax on super contributions applied to everybody. It did not matter whether you were a modest income earner where your income tax rates were around 20 per cent— you paid 15 per cent on your superannuation contributions. That represented a five per cent discount. If you were a higher income earner paying 48c in the dollar on your superannuation contributions, you still paid 15 per cent on your superannuation contributions. There is an example of there being a 33 per cent gain or more for high-income earners for contributions to superannuation, whereas a lower income earner benefited by a five per cent discount. The surcharge made it slightly more equitable and generated some revenue to help to fill the Beazley black hole. That was the idea. It was not pretty, it was not terribly clever; it was designed to help the budget effort in a way that equalised the benefits in superannuation taxation.At the time, the then leader of the Labor Party—Kim Beazley, for those that are interested—was challenged. On 24 March 1997 there was some toing-and-froing going on at question time, which often happens, between Mr Beazley and the Treasurer. Mr Beazley made an aside at the table saying that they were going to support the introduction of a superannuation surcharge—this surcharge that we now hear from the Labor Party is so evil but is so right that any move to reduce it is wrong—and that it was actually a Labor Party policy which was carried forward from the time when they were in office. None of those things are true. It was not in place because the budget black hole had not been created. It was introduced as an equity measure to help repair the budget. Now we are in a position where, through sound financial management, we can reduce the surcharge. That is what this is about. Although the Labor Party says there is no policy, that one example shows us that there is policy and there is thoughtfulness. What the government is doing tonight is part of the menu of things that have been done over seven years to try to make superannuation attractive, to make sure that government finances are sustainable and to put the nation on a better economic footing.The surcharge reduction will ensure that superannuation remains attractive and encourages Australians to save for their retirement. As I mentioned earlier, it has got a step-down of 1½ per cent over each of the next three years from 1 July 2002. The maximum surcharge rate will be 13½ per cent for 2002-03, 12 per cent for 2003-04 and 10½ per cent for 2004-05 and succeeding years. That is what the legislation that is before us tonight is about. There is some finetuning going on to bring that surcharge reduction in with the law relating to a co-contribution for low-income earners, not with a general taxation law. Why? Because both measures are designed to encourage people to provide for their own retirement. They are two initiatives that make retirement savings provision more attractive for both higher and lower income earners, so it is right that they come together and it is right for them to be part of these bills. That is just an example of what has been done.I want to tackle the other issue the member for Blaxland mentioned. He said that the Howard government has no policy. We know the tax concessions provided to superannuation make it the single largest tax expenditure item in the budget. It is worth about $9½ billion this financial year. I often bump into people in Frankston on the Mornington Peninsula in my electorate who say that we still tax superannuation too much, and I have some sympathy for that view. I must say, though, that although a $9½ billion discount is not perhaps what everyone wants it is none too shabby either. A $9½ billion discount is a genuine effort to encourage provision for retirement savings.The policy platform that feeds tonight's debate is the initiatives announced by the government during the 2001 election in the policy that we know as `A Better Superannuation System'. That was aimed at enhancing the overall attractiveness of, accessibility to and security of superannuation. That policy built on a record of achievement by the government in retirement income policy and further demonstrated that the Howard government was serious about assisting Australians to build financial self-reliance in retirement. For those who seem to have missed all that, particularly the member for Blaxland, the measures in that policy covered splitting of superannuation contributions, where single-income families would have access to two eligible termination payment tax-free thresholds; two reasonable benefit limit arrangements in the same way as dual-income families; reducing superannuation and termination payment surcharge rates, which we are discussing here tonight; introducing a government co-contribution for low-income earners, the companion initiative in the bills we are debating cognately tonight; increasing the limit on full deductibility of superannuation contributions for self-employed people from $3,000 to $5,000 while maintaining a 75 per cent deductibility for amounts over that threshold; and reducing the tax on excessive components of the eligible termination payments from superannuation funds to lower the effective tax rate to no more than 48½ per cent. Other measures covered things like allowing working individuals aged 70 but less than 75 to make personal contributions to superannuation. Our law used to preclude mature-age people in that age bracket—people able and willing to contribute in the workplace—from contributing to their superannuation. That followed on from the government's earlier increase from 65 to 70 for voluntary contributions.We are swimming in superannuation policy, which just illustrates the nonsense of the member for Blaxland's comments. The baby bonus can be contributed to superannuation. There are superannuation contributions of $3,000 per child for a three-year period. The quarterly payment of superannuation contributions by employers from 1 July 2003 will make those funds more secure and ensure that those payments are going through. Other issues are choice, the portability of superannuation and market-linked income streams, which the government has committed to examining to see whether they are a way forward. A number of policy initiatives have been built around Family Law Act amendments, including the ability to split superannuation benefits between married couples who separate. Other policies include superannuation spouse rebates and capital gains tax relief for small business proprietors using the proceeds from the sale of their business for retirement income purposes. There are a great many more policies. Frankly, when I did the research in response to the member for Blaxland's comments, I just about fell over when I looked at how much had gone on in this area.We know that federal and state legislation requires employers to make provision for their employees' retirement. I have mentioned the superannuation surcharge step-down and how that is a timely and appropriate thing to do, given that we have done the hard work on restoring the integrity of the government's finances. Now that we are not in $10.3 billion deficit mode we are able to wind back that measure, which was introduced to remedy the deficit the former Labor government left us.The second area is the government's contribution for low-income earners. That is really at the heart of this co-contribution bill. This legislation puts in place arrangements for the government to pay superannuation co-contributions to eligible low-income earners. This policy was part of the package put to the electorate before the last election. As I said, there were 13 reforms in that package, and this is one of its centrepiece initiatives. This bill will allow for a more generous government co-contribution for low-income earners. This means that, if a low-income earner chooses to make a personal contribution towards their superannuation, the government will match it. The bill sets out how this will be implemented. We anticipate that this measure alone will boost superannuation accounts for low-income earners by about $95 million next financial year and by up to $100 million to $105 million a year over the following two years. Combined with the other measures, it actually puts the option of improved savings and self-reliance in retirement into the hands of low-income earners. If we look back, we see the Labor Party saying, `Do it our way.' That is an interesting thing to hear when the member for Blaxland is actually saying that all of this is the Labor Party's work anyway. I have proven that that is nonsense.Let us move on. This legislation will give low-income people who choose to make that contribution the incentive of having it matched by the government. It is a simple system; a whole new bureaucracy does not need to be put in place to make it happen. Under the package we are discussing tonight, the tax office will have account details provided by superannuation funds. Mr Deputy Speaker, they are the details that you and I just love being provided with. The tax office can tell us about our ballistic superannuation surcharge contributions and how they have rocketed up for another year. The income details for low-income tax returns are also with the ATO. It is a matching exercise: the ATO can make an assessment, decide where the co-contribution is to be paid and then make that payment directly into the fund of the low-income earner. There is no need for eligible people to fill out any more paperwork; all the tools needed to determine eligibility are within the tax office.If the tax office is a little bit slow, the bills that we are discussing tonight actually provide for a penalty. Interest will be paid on contributions when the tax office is not as responsive as the legislation requires it to be. This ensures that low-income earners' retirement savings are not disadvantaged. These bills put those things in place. A minimum co-contribution of $20 applies, which is sensible. Why is it needed? It is required because the transactional costs of arranging the co-contribution should not exceed the value of the contribution. Its highest rate of matching is for people with incomes under $20,000 a year. For those people with part-time work or who have chosen not to work full time, this is a very attractive option and one which they can pursue. That co-contribution steps down as the income earner's income increases to $32,500. That makes good sense.It makes better sense than what happened under the former government: it decided that, rather than pay people in take-home earnings, it would put money into superannuation. We are about actually providing the income earner with a choice: they can go down that pathway if they choose to, encouraged by the co-contribution incentive that we are discussing tonight. As I said, the instruments to make it happen are all in place. The Commissioner of Taxation will generally make those determinations and make the payment once all the information is received. Those co-contributions will be paid to the person's superannuation fund or retirement savings account. It is a sensible measure, and that is why I am very supportive of it.In the community that I represent, retirement incomes matter. We have a large retirement community. We have a large number of people on the doorstep of retirement because our area is so attractive to mature-aged people. These measures are designed to provide encouragement and an incentive for those people. There have been incentives put in place for low-income or self-funded retirees through the health care card extension and other measures that were announced in the lead-up to the last election. What we are seeing is a menu of incentives and encouragement to make providing for one's own retirement accessible, attractive and something that is rewarded. In this case, we have co-contributions. I suppose making the superannuation surcharge less distasteful can be characterised as an incentive. I have outlined a number of the measures the government is putting in place in the area of superannuation. In addition, people who are self-funded or lower income retirees often do not have any more discretionary expenditure than somebody who is on a pension, but they miss out on a lot of the concessions. The Howard government has led the way by introducing some concessions through the health care card system that deal with pharmaceutical arrangements and the like. The government has gone forward with a further package of measures which requires the cooperation of the states and territories to extend some of the state based concessions to those lower income self-funded retirees. It is not having a lot of luck with the states and territories: they do not seem too interested in doing those things. Even just last week I received a letter from a constituent lamenting the fact that council rate rebates have not gone up for the last decade or thereabouts. There is plenty of work to be done there and, as I said, the government needs the cooperation of and some assistance from the state and territory governments.My final comment, though, is perhaps a sign of what we could look forward to in the future. I know the Labor Party are a bit of a policy-free zone at the moment; maybe this is an idea that they might choose to think about. In superannuation, we have lower income copayment measures here. Something that I am particularly interested in is late income contributions. There are, in my community, a lot of people who had their lives ruined by the recession we had to have. You remember that recession that put a million people out of work and ruined many small business people's lives and financial security. Their retirement savings were embedded in their business and, when their business went belly up through this recession we had to have, their retirement savings went up with it.For those people, there already are some quite encouraging measures for employer contributions. I will not go into those tonight, but the generosity of the tax treatment improves as the working person gets older. That is great for employer contributions. What I would like to see is employee contributions for people nearing the end of their working lives who have not accumulated sufficient retirement savings, a nest egg, to give them that freedom and independence in retirement, and that we give them some assistance. Maybe that is something we can look at for the future. (Time expired) 20:39:008296Corcoran, Ann, MPMs CORCORAN009CWIsaacsALP00— The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 and the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 are essentially about reducing the superannuation surcharge for high-income earners and introducing a co-contribution for low-income earners. Let me talk about the superannuation surcharge first. The super surcharge was introduced by this government in 1996 and, at that time, the Treasurer said:The measures I am announcing tonight are designed to make superannuation fairer.A major deficiency of the current system is that tax benefits for superannuation are overwhelmingly biased in favour of high income earners. For a person on the top tax rate, superannuation is a 33 percentage point tax concession while a person earning $20 000 receives a 5 percentage point tax concession. High income earners can take added advantage through salary sacrifice arrangements that are not available to lower income earners.The Government is remedying this situation.... ... ...For high income earners the superannuation contributions will still be highly concessional but are more in line with concessions to middle and low income earners.In other words, the government recognised that the high-income earners were receiving a tax benefit that was out of kilter with the benefits available to middle- and low-income earners, and the government was prepared to do something about it. By now proposing to reduce that surcharge, the government is, by default, saying that it is now okay to increase benefits to higher income earners at a significant cost to the taxpayer—something of the order of $20 million per year. There has been no justification put forward by the government for reducing the surcharge for high-income earners, who make up about three per cent of wage earners, whilst not offering any tax cuts for middle- and low-income earners.I should make the point that this tax break comes at a time when the government is asking everyone to pay a significant increase for PBS medicines because of its budgetary problems. ACOSS has pointed out that $5 billion per year is spent on tax breaks for super contributions—about the same as the annual cost of the PBS. Of this $5 billion, about half—that is, $2.5 billion—goes to one-sixth of our employees: those earning over $50,000 per year or more. ACOSS goes on to point out that the generous tax breaks for high-income earners are both unfair and wasteful. The rationale for spending taxpayers' money on tax breaks for superannuation is to encourage savings for retirement. Those on high incomes are likely to save for retirement without tax incentives and are unlikely to be eligible for the aged pension. Therefore, ACOSS argues—and it is hard to disagree with it—offering high-income earners tax incentives is a waste of our scarce resource, the taxpayers' dollar.It is also interesting to note that this surcharge is one of the most expensive taxes to administer. Something like the equivalent of 30 per cent of the revenue raised in the first year was spent by the superannuation funds in set-up costs and administering the scheme. It remains a very expensive tax, and this cost is borne by all members of the fund. These costs are not reduced one iota by a reduction in the surcharge, so there is no advantage here in the cut but actually an increase in the cost per dollar raised.The Labor Party has made two suggestions for a better way of using taxpayers' money to encourage retirement savings, and both of these options leave the surcharge as it is. The first option is to reduce the super contributions tax, for all those who pay it, from the existing 15 per cent to 13 per cent. This gives a tax cut to everyone in superannuation, regardless of their income. The second option is to reduce the contribution tax from the existing 15 per cent to 11.5 per cent for those aged 40 and over, which also benefits everyone over the age of 40, regardless of their income. These options will be revenue neutral if two things happen: firstly, if the current proposal to cut the surcharge is dropped; and, secondly, if the foreshadowed proposal to allow super contribution splitting—which effectively doubles the reasonable benefits limits—is opposed when this bill emerges later this year.The second bill is the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002. The government's proposal is that it will pay superannuation co-contributions for eligible low-income earners. The co-contribution will replace the existing taxation rebate for personal superannuation contributions made by low-income earners but will be more generous. The objective of the proposal is to encourage low-income earners to make superannuation contributions or to increase the level of the contributions that they already make. This will, of course, boost their savings for retirement. The government co-contribution will match personal superannuation contributions made on or after 1 July 2002 by eligible people with incomes of less than $32,500 per year. The maximum co-contribution is $1,000 per year, and that is payable on incomes of $20,000 or less. To be eligible for the co-contribution, a person will need to have employer superannuation support, be aged less than 71 years on 30 June of the year in question and not be eligible for release of benefits upon permanent departure from Australia.Whilst I cannot argue with any proposal to assist those on low incomes I have to question the usefulness of this particular scheme. A person on a low income is not often able to find discretionary income from which to make a payment into their superannuation fund—as attractive as it may be to make that payment. Most people on low incomes are flat out covering their immediate and daily costs. My guess is that not many real low-income earners will be able to take advantage of this scheme. It is more likely that this scheme will be used by those on low incomes who are financially supported by others and therefore can afford to contribute. For instance, a person working part time and in a family which is relatively well off can afford to contribute and take advantage of this scheme for themselves and their family. It has also been suggested that family members will contribute on behalf of the low-income earner, and again the family will be able to take advantage of this scheme. This is not the purpose of the scheme, but it is hard to see how this misuse of the scheme can be avoided as the legislation stands at the moment.I support the amendment that the Labor Party will be moving to include a provision that will require the government to monitor the operation of the co-contribution arrangements. The purposes of the amendment are to ensure that only those who are genuinely in need receive the co-contribution and to establish the take-up rate of the scheme by those in the target group.In summary, firstly, I can find no justification for giving the high-income earner a tax break whilst at the same time not offering the same benefit to others. I support the amendments, which offer much more sensible inducements to save. Secondly, whilst I have no objection to the co-contribution proposal, I do question the likely effectiveness of the scheme. I support the amendment that will ensure that the co-contributions do actually go to those intended to benefit from them, and that the take-up rate is measured to test the effectiveness of the scheme once it is under way.20:46:008298Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—I am delighted to speak on the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. Governance ultimately must deal with three phases of our existence. Firstly, we have to deal with the short term. In political terms, that is a three-year existence, a term of government. That is all about maintaining and promoting a nation's competitiveness. Secondly, we look to the period of 10 years, of a decade. That is about working to promote the long-term growth of a country. Thirdly, governance is about the intergenerational questions of a generation of 30 years and about the sustainability of all of the different systems which go to the core of making up a nation's viability.The Intergenerational Report compiled by the Treasury prior to the last budget set out very clearly that, when you look at the long term, at the 30- to 40-year period, Australia is ageing. That has a dramatic impact on our future as a country. According to the Intergenerational Report, by 2042 the proportion of the population 65 years or older will have doubled. In my own electorate of Flinders, from an analysis we did recently, we expect that the number of people over the age of 60 will increase from 20 per cent of the population now to 35 per cent by 2021. These figures create genuine risks and challenges for the future sustainabilty of our economic systems and our social welfare systems. In that context, it is critical that the government takes action now to prepare for the higher costs of an ageing population. Central to that action is the promotion of a sustainable national savings ratio and national savings program. These bills assist in achieving that exact goal of a sustainable national savings program. They do that in two ways. First, they fulfil the government's commitment to assist lower income earners in saving for retirement. That is a laudable goal, and it is being fulfilled here, now, in this chamber, at this time. It is opposed to the generalised notion of asset based welfare—which does have laudable intent—proposed by the member for Werriwa, which does not contain the practical, simple suggestions which are being fulfilled in this bill in this place on this day. The second objective which is being pursued through these bills is a reduction in the surcharge on employer superannuation contributions for higher income earners. That also goes to the sustainability of the system. The heart of that reform is about increasing the desirability of making contributions for those at the upper end of the system, which in turn makes it more likely that they will be better prepared for their retirement, which in turn means that there will be more available for others to draw from the social welfare system. If you increase the pressure on the social welfare system, you decrease the ability of the country to provide for all. This works by allowing people to provide for themselves—which is a goal that we as a party seek to pursue—and also, in achieving that end, by freeing up the system to provide as well as possible for all of the others.In looking at those objectives, I want to proceed in three stages. Firstly, I want to examine the government achievements and initiatives in superannuation and retirement income policy. Secondly, I want to examine the provisions of this bill. Thirdly, I want to examine the advantages of these two bills which are being discussed together.Looking at the first of these, what have been the key government achievements in superannuation and retirement income policy? First, there was the introduction in January 2002 of a twice-yearly indexation of Commonwealth superannuation pensions to take account of inflation. It is expected that this will result in a real increase in benefits for around 100,000 pensioners. Second, there will be capital gains tax relief to permit revenue from the sale of a small business to be used for retirement income purposes. That is a tremendous benefit to small business owners and those who help to drive the creation of jobs throughout our economy. Third, there will be capital gains tax changes to allow nominal capital gains of superannuation funds to be taxed at the concessional rate of 10 per cent. This is where the assets are held for a minimum of one year. Fourth, the introduction of new investment rules will ensure that superannuation savings are not put at risk—an important prudential requirement to ensure that there is sufficient protection for superannuation savings. Fifth, there will be higher tax rebates for seniors. Add that to the establishment of a pension bonus scheme which entitles those who remain in the work force and who defer the age pension to a tax-free lump sum and that is a very important set of initiatives.In addition, a series of proposed initiatives are now beginning to be fulfilled. These were set out in the 2001 election policy `A better superannuation system'. The initiatives include, firstly, a commitment to lower income earners in saving for retirement. That commitment is fulfilled by these bills today. Secondly, there is a pledge to reduce the surcharge on employer super contributions for higher income earners. At present, the surcharge applies in relation to employees earning over $90,500, with the surcharge gradually being phased in until those earning approximately $110,000 and above are subject to a maximum charge of 15 per cent. It is this surcharge, which is over and above the tax that is normally paid, that the government is committed to reducing to 10.5 per cent. That initiative is being addressed in this package of bills. Third, the government proposed to increase the maximum level of fully deductible superannuation contributions by self-employed people from $3,000 to $5,000. Fourthly, the government proposed a requirement that employers make at least quarterly superannuation contributions from 1 July 2003. All of those conditions are critical to ensuring the long-term health and care of our superannuation and retirement income systems.How do these two bills specifically work? The first of the two bills is the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002. Under this bill, a scheme will be introduced whereby the government will make co-contributions to the superannuation funds of low-income earners. This is a tremendous step forward. The co-contribution will work by replacing the existing tax rebate for personal superannuation contributions, but it will be more generous. The maximum tax rebate is currently $100. The maximum co-contribution will be $1,000 per annum. As a result, the government will be spending an estimated $270 million over the next three years to assist low-income earners to save for their retirement. That means people in Dromana, Rosebud, Rye, Hastings, Somerville, Pearcedale, Baxter, Lang Lang, Cowes and Ventnor will benefit. Those most in need will be able to prepare for their long-term future. The bill deals with eligibility for co-contributions, the Australian Taxation Office information gathering arrangements, the level of the co-contribution, the method of payment and the review of decisions—all of which are important and necessary steps.The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill proposes to amend and reduce the surcharge rate on employer contributions, where they are to superannuation funds or termination payments, for high-income earners. In particular, the surcharge amendments will result in the maximum surcharge level being reduced from 15 per cent to 10½ per cent over three years. Importantly, in looking at the long term, the government has agreed to review the surcharge levels after three years to establish whether further adjustments of the surcharges are required.What are the advantages of these bills? Why are they important? Firstly, as I mentioned at the outset, the co-contributions bill assists those most in need of incentives and assistance in saving for retirement. It provides not just assistance but a regime which encourages people to save for their retirement who otherwise might have no ability to do so. It will not solve all the problems. The member for Isaacs implied that it was less than perfect because it would not guarantee that everybody had a rich and prosperous future. It might not do that, but it does give people a much greater ability than they have ever had before to save for their retirement, particularly those who come from the lowest income brackets within our society. Secondly, it represents a fulfilment of the government's commitments to those who are disadvantaged. Thirdly, the ATO information gathering, which will be along existing lines, will help to ensure that the contribution is matched and carried out in full.What are the benefits of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill? The critical thing is that the surcharge reduction will increase the level of superannuation savings. This will have a benefit for those who receive the reduction but, importantly, it will also increase national savings. That in turn will create an additional pressure causing interest rates to fall and investment to increase and will help to generate wealth, which will benefit everyone in the country. It is a critical step in that, by encouraging self-help, it also encourages a regime which brings national wealth and benefits to all. It fulfils a government commitment to improve the superannuation system and to counter the increasing costs of an ageing population. Above all else, it will ensure that those in higher income brackets, who can afford to save, will save sufficiently for their retirement so that they will not draw on the system, they will not seek more than their fair share and they will contribute to the stock of national wealth and national savings.Ultimately, these bills are about a generational concern for people 20, 30 and 40 years from now. This is exactly what government should be doing. The bills fit with the Howard government's plans to examine the intergenerational aspects of our health care system, our economic system, our aged care system and our social welfare system, in addition to the environment. Put together, these bills are an important step forward in ensuring that 20, 30 and 40 years from now subsequent generations will live in a country which takes care of its elderly and which is still better equipped to ensure that the economy is productive and that there are jobs, health care and a sustainable welfare system for all Australians.20:59:008300Jackson, Sharryn, MPMs JACKSON00AN2HasluckALP00— Sometimes I wonder if we are actually speaking on the same legislation in this place, because I too intended to address both the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. Whilst I acknowledge that the bills between them contain two principle measures—that is, firstly, a reduction in the surcharge tax on superannuation for high-income earners and, secondly, the introduction of a government co-contribution for low-income earners—I have grave doubts that the kind of nirvana suggested by the previous speaker and government member, the member for Flinders, will come about.It is our view that the surcharge reduction is highly inequitable. Frankly, it provides a tax cut to those who earn in excess of $90,527 in the financial year 2002-03. As I understand it, the figures that were provided to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, which recently conducted an inquiry on related superannuation and tax laws amendments, identified that the group likely to benefit from this tax cut represents approximately four per cent of working Australians. It is interesting that it was the Howard government that introduced the surcharge tax in 1996. As other opposition speakers have pointed out, this was despite the fact that, in his pre-election commitments, the Prime Minister promised that a Howard government would not introduce any new taxes. I guess I could say that, as usual, people say one thing prior to an election and another thing after it. This is a classic example of that.The recent report of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation dealt specifically with the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2002. Originally, when the Senate committee commenced its examination, the reduction of the surcharge was proposed in these pieces of legislation. It was not until after public hearings on the issue were due to commence that the government sought to make changes to ensure that the reduction in the surcharge was implemented in the legislation along with the introduction of the co-contribution. As a consequence of that, the Senate report and the submissions received by that committee dealt with the issue of the surcharge. One thing that was very clear to me from reading the report was that serious objections to the surcharge were raised. In particular—and this is something that I understand the industry has been complaining about for some time—the surcharge is extremely complex and is an administrative burden on many of the superannuation funds as well as on the Australian Taxation Office. There is nothing in this legislation before the parliament which in any way seeks to address that administrative complexity. Also, I have grave concerns that all superannuation fund members are meeting the administrative costs of this surcharge. In other words, the administrative burden translates into higher administrative costs, those costs are defrayed across all members of the superannuation fund and, as a consequence of that, all members, including low-income members, are contributing unnecessarily to the administration costs. That is inequitable and something that I would have hoped the government would have seen the need to address.As other speakers have already said, Labor have proposed alternatives to the measures before the House which we say are fairer and more equitable and will add thousands of dollars to Australians' retirement incomes. I will come to those two options shortly. I would urge the government to redirect the Treasurer's superannuation tax cuts from the wealthy—or, in other words, the few—to all superannuation fund members who pay the contributions tax. As I indicated, Labor proposed in the budget reply two alternative propositions which were revenue neutral to the cost of the government's proposal to reduce the surcharge tax. The first option was to cut the superannuation contributions tax for all Australians who pay it from the present 15 per cent to 13 per cent, thereby assisting the retirement incomes of all Australians rather than just those few who are lucky enough to have incomes in excess of $90,527 per annum. The second option, which I believed was also worth significant consideration, was the proposal to cut to 11½ per cent the tax for people who are aged 40 and over. Either option would have added many thousands of dollars to the retirement incomes of many more Australians than these measures will. In his earlier comments, the member for Kingston, I think, gave specific examples in practical terms of how our alternative proposals would have impacted on Australian workers and how they would have meant that tax cuts flowed to a far greater number of people than those proposed in the government's legislation.I turn to the second measure in the bill, the co-contributions measure. Whilst the Labor Party is supporting this measure in these circumstances, I think it is fair to say that it is a pale imitation of the scheme originally proposed by Labor. The current government proposal will, on the best estimates, see something like 75,000 people receive the full $1,000—and this is from a total pool of some 4.4 million people with incomes of less than $32,500. It is my very great concern that very few, if any, will benefit from the co-contribution change.The proposal originally put forward in May 1995 by the then ALP government, in a statement called `Savings for our future', included a proposal for government to match contributions of up to three per cent of average weekly ordinary time earnings. In today's terms, I believe that is about $1,342 per annum. That did not phase out until a member achieved a wage of twice the average weekly ordinary time earnings or, in today's terms, $89,492. It is worth noting that in the lead-up to the 1996 election the current Treasurer committed an incoming coalition government to implementing the 1995 ALP co-contribution proposals. As we know, the government subsequently reneged on that promise and implemented a savings rebate which, as history records, was quickly abolished.I am a great supporter of co-contributions as an incentive to low-income earners to make voluntary contributions to super, and that was part of Labor's original framework for the Australian retirement income system—the so-called three pillars. The first pillar is the age pension, modest though it still is. The second pillar is compulsory contributions for employees. I was active in many workplaces during 1986, 1987 and 1988. When the compulsory contribution was made good in the 1986 national wage case, we negotiated the implementation of those payments in many workplaces in exchange for a cost of living adjustment to wages. That compulsory contribution was subsequently extended by the superannuation guarantee. The third pillar is the very important part of voluntary contributions towards retirement savings for individuals— and it is exactly that: a decision for the individual. It is entirely proper for governments to look at incentives to assist and encourage people to make payments. What we have as a consequence of the changes introduced by the Labor government after 1983 and through the early 1990s is recognised as a world-class best practice model for retirement incomes. I have to say—and excuse the pun—that the current government are Johnny-come-latelies in the area of superannuation and that their tinkering with the framework of retirement incomes has not and will not substantially improve the system.Other speakers have talked about the thousands of workers, if not more, who will benefit from the co-contribution. When you look at the annual incomes where this co-contribution will apply, you really have to ask yourself whether people are still in touch with the real life situation for struggling families. I know that for many of the families that I deal with in my electorate of Hasluck who are on incomes of around $32,500, it is a struggle on a weekly and fortnightly basis to meet the everyday costs of living, quite apart from looking at where extra or additional funds may come from to make a co-contribution to their superannuation scheme. I urge the government to monitor the impact of this measure which, as I have indicated, is supported by Labor. A little bit is better than nothing, but it worries me that it will have a very limited impact and that the real life situation for most struggling families is that they are not going to be able to make the voluntary contribution that would be matched by the government under this proposed co-contribution measure. I know that other speakers will talk about requiring the government to closely monitor the operation of the co-contribution arrangements so that those who are genuinely in need receive the co-contribution and so that the proportion of the target group who are accessing the co-contribution is established. If my fears are realised and very few low-income earners are in that position, I hope that the government will immediately return to the House and propose further amendments which will ensure that this target group, which is the apparent concern of so many people here, do in fact gain the benefits of improved retirement incomes.I have talked about the framework that was introduced by Labor and about the current system. I have one further concern about the way in which this operates and it stems from the difficulties of a number of my constituents who are not enjoying the second pillar of the retirement income system, which is the superannuation guarantee charge. Given the role of the ATO in the enforcement and administration of that, and recognising the role they will play in the co-contribution measure, I think that we need to have a good look at how this system works. I have asked a question on notice of the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer in this place—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—Best of luck.00AN2Jackson, Sharryn, MPMs JACKSON—Yes; one day, hopefully, she will answer. On our research we understand that approximately 28 per cent, or some 216,000, of the current 800,000 employers in Australia have not paid their employees' superannuation guarantee contributions correctly, and that means that there are potentially millions of workers out there who are trying to get some justice in the superannuation guarantee area. Senator Nick Sherry, the shadow spokesman in this area, has reported to the Senate that the tax office received some 11,000 complaints about unpaid superannuation in the year 2001 alone and that it had admitted that the amount of outstanding superannuation guarantee payments is at least $116 million. This lost superannuation not only has a devastating effect on the individuals concerned but will have a significant impact on Australian taxpayers, as ultimately it will mean a greater reliance on the pension at a time when the Australian community will be least able to afford it. As I have previously said, this is a significant issue for Australian families, particularly for some of those families in my electorate of Hasluck. They are people on very low incomes who, if they can find the funds to make a voluntary contribution to superannuation, may be eligible for the co-payment under this proposal. They are missing out on thousands if not millions of dollars in the superannuation guarantee area because of a failure to properly enforce the legislation or see that it is properly complied with.I urge the government to address this area because if we are serious about ensuring appropriate retirement incomes for Australian workers then we need to make sure that we have in place a system where, if your employer goes bust, your retirement future is protected. Rather than have a priority which is to see the amount of tax on superannuation contributions paid by high-income earners lowered, we should be doing something to enhance the retirement income of ordinary working Australians. We know that those people who are missing out on the SGC include thousands of casual, part-time and seasonal workers, many of whom will never be in a position to make voluntary contributions to superannuation. I have already spoken about the difficulties that those employees have when they try to chase up where their payments are through the Australian Taxation Office. What I believe is desperately needed, and what I hope the government will give some consideration to, is an agency that has the resources and the will to take on offending employers by prosecuting them for recovery of unpaid benefits that, in many cases, go back to when the superannuation guarantee was introduced in 1992.I have spoken briefly about the alternative Labor options. This area of superannuation is an incredibly important policy response to the consequences of our ageing population. The framework that the Labor government put in place in the eighties and early nineties was far more visionary and real in terms of the benefits to ordinary working Australians than the kinds of measures we understand the government think are important as a consequence of their Intergenerational Report. That is why, in this area of superannuation, we need to be absolutely certain that the people who are the targets of legislation like the co-contributions measure actually receive the benefits. I urge the government to lift their game in this area and make the retirement income system work.The final group I would like to address some remarks to are the Democrats. I have concerns about what appears to be a shifting position by the Democrats in respect of this legislation. Originally, the Democrats supported a motion from Labor which called on the government to withdraw the measure of reducing the surcharge. I understand from recent media reports that it appears that the Democrats have done a bit of a backflip or made a change in their policy and are now set to deliver the wealthy a tax windfall while leaving many working Australians with nothing. That is one of the consequences of this proposal. In my closing comments I urge the Democrats to reconsider their position. We ought to be redirecting the changes from this windfall to the wealthy to the benefit of all Australian workers and their retirement incomes.21:19:008304Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—In the context of the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002, let me remind the House of the International Monetary Fund's latest report on Australia. It makes impressive reading. The IMF has concluded that the Australian economy has continued to grow strongly despite the global economic slowdown during 2001, the fiscal position is sound and growth is expected to remain at about four per cent in 2002-03. More importantly, the commentary provided by the IMF's analysts should be considered in the context of future economic policy making. That commentary includes the observation:... comprehensive reforms of the tax, income support and industrial relations systems will help to sustain relatively favourable growth prospects over the medium term and to ensure that all Australian partake in the benefits.The report goes on:The staff suggested that consideration be given to lowering the top marginal personal income tax rate ...I must say I agree entirely with that recommendation. The IMF also observed:... relative to other advanced economies, Australia appears to be well positioned to deal with the budgetary implications of population ageing. The combination of a means-tested public pension system with a compulsory private (superannuation) system is expected to provide high replacement rates for the population and stimulate private savings.That is certainly true, and the superannuation reforms being proposed by this government will consolidate Australia's position to the benefit of taxpayers and retirees. I want to mention self-funded retirees for a moment. Last Friday I was pleased to be invited to speak at the national conference of the Association of Independent Retirees, held in Perth. In my speech I considered the changes that we anticipate to the profile of the Australian population. The proportion of people aged 65 years and over is projected to grow from 12.4 per cent in 2001 to 21.9 per cent, nearly 22 per cent, in 2031—that is, from 2.4 million older Australians to 5.05 million. In 20 years time, the population aged over 65 will be growing at three times the rate of the population aged between 15 and 64. Based on these projections, in 50 years time one-quarter of the Australian population could be aged 65 and over.Similar and more particular projections are envisaged in the western suburbs of Perth, in my electorate of Curtin. Within 10 years, more than one in five residents of the western suburbs of Perth will be aged over 60. I think that too often this phenomenon is described as a problem. This is a mischaracterisation; rather, the changing demography of Australia is a challenge to public policy makers. As has been noted, `an older Australia doesn't have to be a poorer one'.In order to enjoy an affluent lifestyle, older Australians will need to be committed to self-funded retirement. Today's workers, especially those entering the work force, will need to maintain one eye on their long-term financial futures. But if self-funded retirement is to be encouraged, then self-funded retirees must be rewarded for their choices. For far too many years, older Australians who provided for their own retirement incomes were regarded as the exceptions, and as exceptions their public policy wishes could be safely ignored by governments more comfortable with an old-fashioned model based on universal and parsimonious welfare pensions. In the future, self-funded retirees—whether partially or fully self-funded—will be in the majority. In 1986 only two in five Australian employees had some form of superannuation. Due to the superannuation guarantee paid by employees, that figure is now around 98 per cent of employees with leave entitlements and 72 per cent of casual employees. In fact, more than half of all employed people aged over 40 and earning $30,000 or more annually have gone beyond the guarantee to make a personal contribution to superannuation savings.The demographic challenge facing Australia is the crest of a wave that has been building for decades. Over the past century, Australians have added an extra 20 years to their life expectancy. In 100 years we have become a particularly urbanised nation and in the 100 years to come we will experience all the changes that will flow from quantum leaps in science and technology. This is a challenge for governments but also an opportunity. Access Economics, analysing the likely effects of these changes, has advised that an increase in work force participation of just 10 per cent of 55- to 70-year-olds will cancel out the additional costs of an ageing Australia. We as a community need to take a new approach to working, develop a mature age employment strategy and remove barriers to participation in the work force based on age. So the current debate on superannuation, retirement incomes and future social policy is very important.The two bills before the House fulfil election commitments given by the coalition last year and will ensure that superannuation is more attractive and more easily accessible. The Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill will provide for a superannuation co-contribution to those Australians with lower incomes. As such, the co-contribution replaces the present $100 taxation rebate for private contributions made by low-income earners. By contrast, the co-contribution is to a maximum of $1,000. Furthermore, low-income earners not entitled to claim a deduction for contributions will be eligible to receive the co-contribution provided they meet the relevant eligibility criteria. These criteria will ensure that the government co-contribution will match personal contributions made from the beginning of this financial year by people with incomes less than $32,500 per annum. The maximum rebate is payable to persons with incomes less than $20,000 per annum. For each dollar that a person earns over $20,000 per annum, the accessible co-contribution is reduced by 8c. A $20 minimum co-contribution will apply. The income test includes assessable income and reportable fringe benefits, as per the existing rebate, and persons must be aged less than 71 on 30 June of the year in which the contributions were made. Those seeking the co-contribution must also be ineligible to access the release of superannuation benefits upon permanent departure overseas. Small business operators will be able to continue accessing a tax deduction on personal contributions, and it is the government's intention to raise the fully deductible amount by $2,000 to $5,000 per annum. In order that all eligible persons receive the co-contribution, the tax office will assess and pay the co-contribution directly to a person's superannuation fund on the basis of tax returns lodged with the ATO. While an eligible person may need to answer additional questions on their tax return, they will not need to specifically apply for the rebate. The co-contribution represents an investment in sound retirement policy. The budget papers indicate that between 2003 and 2006 the co-contribution will cost the Commonwealth a net $270 million.The second bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill, amends a number of taxation and superannuation acts as a consequence of the co-contribution measure. It also makes a very important and most welcome change to the superannuation surcharge. I will not mince words here: I think that the surcharge itself is inappropriate law. I was not a member of this parliament when the surcharge was introduced and, had I been the member for Curtin at that time, I most certainly would have argued against its adoption. I well understand the budgetary requirements that drove the adoption of the surcharge in 1996. Nevertheless, I believe that the surcharge was an inappropriate mechanism by which to raise revenue, given the importance of savings integrity in the Australian economy. Since 1998 I have personally lobbied to remove the surcharge or at least to mitigate its effects. I was therefore most pleased that in this year's federal budget the Treasurer confirmed that the federal government would reduce the 15 per cent surcharge rate by one-tenth for each of the next three financial years; that is, the rate will be 13.5 per cent in 2002-03, 12 per cent in 2003-04 and 10.5 per cent in 2004-05 and thenceforth. This means $50 million will be returned to Australian taxpayers in 2003-04, $120 million in 2004-05 and $200 million in 2005-06.After three years the government will review the surcharge to determine if additional reforms are necessary. This measure will encourage increased savings and greater self-reliance on the part of Australian retirees. It will be of obvious benefit to those persons on whom the surcharge is imposed. In this regard I should note that this reduction in the surcharge rate is not a free kick to higher income earners, merely a partial return of the extra taxation extracted from them by way of the surcharge. To believe, as some members of the opposition do, that this measure is a reversal of the Robin Hood principle is analogous to a thief returning a wallet to his victim, leaving change for the bus and then asking for a thankyou note. I commend both bills to the House.21:30:008306Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I am pleased to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 and I also support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow Assistant Treasurer in relation to this bill. This bill and the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 propose two changes to superannuation. The first is a government co-contribution for those low-income Australians who are able to make voluntary contributions to super. The second is the reduction of the surcharge tax that applies to the contributions of high-income earners. We on the Labor side of the House fully support the low-income co-contribution but we believe that there are higher priorities in superannuation than a tax cut for the wealthy few. We welcome the government's decision to provide a co-contribution of up to $1,000 for low-income earners who make voluntary contributions. This will be dollar for dollar for those with incomes of less than $20,000 a year, with a reduced co-contribution for those earning up to $32,500. It is interesting that the Liberal government have chosen to call this proposal a co-contribution, almost in memory of their short-sighted decision to drop Labor's co-contribution, despite costing it into their first budget. Labor's co-contribution would have provided an extra three per cent, a government contribution, on top of the nine per cent employer contribution required by Labor's superannuation guarantee. This would have benefited all low- and middle-income earners, whether they could afford to make voluntary contributions or not. While it is but a pale imitation of Labor's co-contribution, we support the government's proposal and hope that low-income Australians will use it to increase their retirement savings. I hope that, when the time comes to vote on this legislation, the government will accept Labor's sensible amendments removing the surcharge reduction and allow the co-contribution to pass.The coalition government introduced the surcharge tax in the 1997 budget. At the time it was presented as an equity measure to make super fairer by requiring those on high incomes to pay more tax. The Treasurer, Mr Costello, during his macarena interview with Kerri-Anne Kennerley, even went so far as to say:On Budget night the first Treasurer in history— me—stood up and put a surcharge in respect to high income earners and applied it to himself and every other politician; you know, we're the good guys in relation to this.Not surprisingly given the record of this government, the Treasurer's tune has changed. Presumably after complaints from their own branch members and supporters in blue-ribbon seats, the Liberal government have decided to reduce the surcharge by a third, at a cost of $370 million over three years. According to the Minister for Revenue, Senator Coonan, the reduction in the surcharge is essential to `encourage greater saving for retirement'. However, therein lies the fundamental contradiction in the government's package. Their emphasis is on providing incentives for voluntary retirement savings. This is the principle behind the low-income co-contribution but it is a principle lost on the government in relation to the surcharge. The surcharge applies to employer contributions, including compulsory contributions for those on an adjustable taxable income of more than $90,500. In other words, a high-income individual is not required to make any additional contributions to gain a substantial benefit from this tax cut. What this boils down to is that under this legislation the wealthiest four per cent of Australians are guaranteed a tax cut while those on less than $32,500 need to find the money to make voluntary contributions to get any benefit. Those earning more than $32,500 but less than $90,500 get nothing. Let me tell the Treasurer that there are not too many people in my electorate of Braddon, on the north-west coast of Tasmania, and in the seat of my colleague the member for Lyons who earn more than $32,500. Very few earn more than $90,500.Labor believe there is a better way, a fairer way. Labor will support the co-contribution but we cannot in good conscience, particularly in the current climate, support a tax cut directed solely to high-income Australians. At a time when the Treasurer has lost $1 billion in taxpayers' money on currency markets and wants to jack up the cost of medicines on the PBS and when the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Nelson, wants young Australians to pay thousands of dollars more than they do already to go to university, the government has not made the case for a tax cut for the top four per cent of employees. Instead, Labor propose to use the savings from opposing this tax cut for wealthy Australians and other unfair and unnecessary changes to superannuation to cut the contributions tax that applies to all Australians whose employers make super contributions on their behalf.In advocating Labor's fairer alternative, I would like to pay a special tribute to my colleague and fellow resident of the village of Forth on the north-west coast of Tasmania, Senator Nick Sherry. I am sure all on this side of the House would agree that Nick has done a magnificent job so far as our spokesperson on superannuation. Nick has a keen understanding of how super operates and, more importantly, of the needs and concerns of ordinary working Australians as they prepare for retirement. Nick, as our shadow minister responsible for this area, has produced a series of careful yet visionary policy options on retirement incomes, and his options on the contributions tax are no exception.We on this side of the House propose to cut the tax to either 13 per cent for all fund members or 11.5 per cent for those aged 40 and over. This second option is designed specifically to address the problem faced by thousands of Australian workers of the baby boomer generation who will not have enough superannuation to retire on because they have received super for only part of their working lives, and then only—and let this be remembered—because Labor showed the vision necessary to introduce a superannuation guarantee in the first place. This problem is clear not only from a recent report by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling but from much closer to home in the inquiries that my colleagues and I receive from ordinary Australians worried about what they are going to retire on. My experience in Braddon suggests that many fellow north-west coasters are deeply concerned about superannuation but that very few are worried about the surcharge. As I mentioned earlier, this is unsurprising given that the proportion of taxpayers earning more than $1,500 per week in Braddon is only 1.4 per cent—the ninth lowest for all federal electorates in Australia. Compare this to the Treasurer's electorate of Higgins where some 14 per cent earn more than this amount. Indeed, of the top 15 electorates of the proportion of taxpayers in this income range, 11 are Liberal held seats perchance including, in addition to the Treasurer's, those of the ministers for small business, education, the environment, immigration and Indigenous affairs and workplace relations. No wonder the Liberal government are so determined to throw $370 million at the wealthiest four per cent of Australians when so many of them live in the electorates of their members.However, in proposing this legislation, they are forgetting that the majority of Australians, including a majority of residents in their electorates, do not pay the surcharge and will not receive a single cent from this wasteful tax cut. On the other hand, literally millions of Australians in every corner of the country—be it in Braddon or in North Sydney—would benefit from Labor's proposal to cut the contributions tax. Perhaps the government realise how much fairer Labor's proposals are but refuse to say so. This would explain why they have simply failed to engage Labor in a reasoned debate about the merits of these proposals. Instead they attempted to discredit Labor's costings, but in the words of Laurie Oakes the Treasurer ended up with `egg on his face' after a combination of incompetence and dishonesty saw his post-budget attack collapse in a heap.As I said earlier, my office in Burnie, along with Senator Sherry's in Devonport, which is also in Braddon, receives numerous inquiries from Tasmanians concerned about their super. In the options paper that he released on 2 August, Senator Sherry has moved to address the issues raised by our constituents in Tasmania and, certainly on this side of the House, others like them around Australia. The Tasmanians I have spoken to are concerned about not only the taxes on superannuation but also the sometimes excessive fees they pay, the safety of their super entitlements and the complexities of the current system. Currently there are no controls on the fees that can be charged on superannuation, either in the accumulation stage or after retirement. Nor, thanks to the government's failure to negotiate in good faith with the opposition parties and consumer representatives, are there strong rules for meaningful fee disclosure. We know of all too many cases where consumers are sold superannuation products or retirement income streams by financial planners paid on commission. What many people do not appreciate, and what few financial salespeople explain to them, is the effect of fees on their final retirement savings. A fee equal to two per cent of assets per year—a relatively low fee by the standards of for-profit retail funds—reduces the final retirement accumulation by 22 per cent over 40 years. A five per cent fee, which is common in retail funds, reduces the final retirement accumulation by a massive 60 per cent. In a region like the north-west of Tasmania and in the seat of Lyons held by you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, where incomes are relatively low and many employees have broken work patterns, fund members can ill afford fees like these. That is why Labor's shadow minister for retirement incomes and savings, in response to government proposals to deregulate fund membership, has flagged the option of capping the fees that can be levied against compulsory superannuation. An issue of serious concern to many employees in my electorate is the timely payment of superannuation guarantee entitlements by employers. A vast majority of employers in Braddon, as in other parts of Australia, pay their employees' superannuation in full and on time. However, unfortunately there are some who do not. Often this is through honest mistakes or as a result of a business going through a temporary downturn, but sometimes it is the result of a deliberate strategy to avoid paying employee entitlements. A number of employees have contacted us whose employers have not paid them or their workmates any super for a number of years. These people contact the Australian Taxation Office with their concerns, but all too often little is done to chase up their entitlements. One reason for this, I suspect, is that the ATO does not have a single officer based in Tasmania—not one single officer based in my home state—devoted to tracking down unpaid superannuation.That the government are not serious about protecting the superannuation entitlements of ordinary Australians was clear in the changes they proposed to cut some workers out of the system entirely. Not before time, the government moved legislation to require superannuation guarantee contributions to be made quarterly rather than annually. Labor supported this measure, but we could not support changes to the exemption threshold contained in that bill. The change in the threshold from $450 per month to $1,350 per quarter would have denied thousands of workers their superannuation entitlements altogether. Those worst affected would have been workers who changed jobs frequently, particularly those in rural industries such as fruit picking and shearing. Fortunately, the government dropped this change after Labor's strong and principled opposition.Another issue that my colleagues and I receive numerous inquiries on is the early release of superannuation to those suffering financial hardships. This is a difficult issue that requires a balance between the objective of superannuation as a source of retirement income and the immediate needs of those facing financial difficulties. The number of inquiries we receive from those applying for early access is a sure sign that the current system is too complicated. Under Labor, the system was administered centrally through the then Insurance and Superannuation Commission, but the current government changed it so that fund members needed to go through Centrelink and their super fund in some cases and through APRA in others. A unanimous report by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation tabled in January this year made a number of recommendations to simplify this system, including centralising its administration in Centrelink. The government's response to this report is overdue. We on this side call upon them to consider these recommendations in a more timely manner.One final issue that I would like to touch on in relation to superannuation of particular concern in my electorate is the issue of where Australia's superannuation is invested. The primary responsibility of superannuation trustees is to generate the best investment returns for their members. This requires diverse investments in a range of assets, including some that are overseas. There are growing concerns, however, that very little of the superannuation savings of those living and working in regional Australia find their way back to local investment and local jobs. Indeed, it is an issue in which I share an interest with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in our work on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. That certainly came through in submissions made to us about how best to assist regional Australia.Governments of either political persuasion should treat any proposals to direct investment into particular assets with caution, but more can and should be done to encourage investment in regional Australia. A discussion paper by the Senate superannuation committee discussed a number of positive developments and future options in this regard. A number of superannuation funds and financial institutions have created regional investment trusts that provide the essential link between local projects and the investment capital they need. This is a welcome development indeed, and one that should be encouraged through government assistance where necessary.I have looked at a number of superannuation issues of concern in my electorate. I know that these concerns are shared by many on this side of the House and, indeed, I am sure by others on the other side. The experiences and concerns of my constituents go to show two things about superannuation. The first is that the super agenda is much broader than the tax issues we are considering today in this bill. Secondly, when it comes to tax, ordinary Australians deserve a helping hand through a guaranteed tax cut on their employer contributions. I urge the government to withdraw the unfair tax cut in this bill and replace it with Labor's real tax cut for all working Australians.21:48:008309Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10— Every Australian thinks about their future, whether it be paying off their own home, getting married, having a family or retirement. Continued work by the government to ensure Australians also place importance on retirement has been successful, with huge numbers of Australians recognising the need to plan for their financial future. As Australia's population continues to age, it has become a reality that taxpayers will not be able to fund an age pension into the future. It is imperative that we as a government encourage Australians to plan and save for their retirement. The government have implemented a number of measures and incentives to encourage superannuation savings since we were elected in 1996. A number of changes to superannuation were outlined before the 2001 election in the document A Better Superannuation System. This is reaffirming this government's commitment to improving Australia's superannuation system for all Australian people.Some of the measures that are being implemented by the government through the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 will ensure that Australians have better and more financially secure retirements than at any other time in Australia's history. The coalition are determined to help low-income earners save for their retirement. We are also working towards creating a fair and equitable system for both employers and employees, and these bills do exactly that. Superannuation and a secure retirement are not designed solely for high--income earners, and that is what the government are seeking to address. We are fighting the cause for hundreds of thousands of low-income earners, many of whom are struggling to put away superannuation for their retirement.The member for Braddon indicated that there were going to be very few people who would benefit from this and that there would be very few regional people who would be able to seek benefits from this bill as it currently stands. In fact, I have an amazing amount of people within my electorate who are constantly calling, asking about surcharge and asking about a whole host of reasons why they have to pay added charges on their superannuation. They are not rich people—they are policemen, they are Defence people. Basically, on their wages, they are all grossed up, and this all becomes part of their overall payment. They do not actually get it in their hand. I suspect that it would be a fatal blow if somebody were to refuse them being able to get benefits from the bill.These measures that we have put in place here will widen access to the superannuation system and encourage our low-income earners to contribute to their superannuation funds, with extra incentives from the government to do so. We as a government need to encourage low-income workers to think about their future retirement, enabling them to have a secure income and spend their retirement as they wish. The government have already increased employer contributions to nine per cent from July 1 this year, ensuring superannuation funds continue to grow into the future. All Australians want to be able to retire comfortably, without the worry of financial shortfalls. By introducing these measures, we are working towards achieving a comfortable and secure retirement for all average Australians.The bill establishes the arrangements for the government to pay superannuation co-contributions to eligible low-income earners. It will also amend a number of taxation and superannuation laws as a consequence of the government's co--contribution arrangements, and reduce the rates of the superannuation and termination payments surcharge from 15 per cent to 10.5 per cent over the next three years. It will also repeal the existing taxation rebate for personal superannuation contributions found in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. All Australians deserve to have this legislation passed in this House as it is. Termination payments and the surcharge need to be reduced, but it is Labor's intention to continually block this, as it has done in the past.The superannuation surcharge changes will take effect from 1 July 2002. The superannuation surcharge amendments should reduce the superannuation surcharge rate by one-tenth of its current level for each of the three years commencing 1 July 2002. These amendments are expected to result in a revenue cost of around $50 million in 2003-04, $120 million in 2004-05 and $200 million in 2005-06. The government co-contribution measure will apply to all eligible personal superannuation contributions made on or after 1 July 2002 by qualifying low-income earners. This is expected to result in a budgetary cost of $85 million in 2003-04, $90 million in 2004-05 and $95 million in 2005-06. In order to simplify the way in which people can receive the government's co-contribution, the Australian Taxation office will use contribution and account details provided by superannuation funds. These details, together with the income details from the low-income earner's tax returns, will be used to assess and pay the co-contribution directly to the person's fund. There will be no need for eligible people to apply for the co-contribution. The requirement for funds to report new information from that currently required will not commence until 1 July 2003. This time frame will provide superannuation funds with a window in which to implement any necessary system changes.By replacing the existing taxation rebate for personal superannuation contributions made by low-income earners with a more generous government superannuation contribution, we are continuing to confirm this government's commitment to equity in superannuation for working Australians. We are also assisting low-income earners to save for their retirement. The government recognised that more incentives were needed to encourage low-income earners to save for their own retirement, and the incentives this legislation will provide will boost the retirement savings of eligible individuals. Those on low incomes are currently entitled to a maximum rebate of $100 for undeducted personal superannuation contributions, and the maximum rebate applies to those on or below incomes of $27,000 and $31,000. This will be replaced by a far more generous co-contribution to match the personal super contributions of low-income earners up to an annual amount of $1,000.In order to best demonstrate the impact of the measures outlined in this legislation, I will use an example first used in the Sydney Morning Herald in May this year. A 35-year-old on an income of $15,000 who can contribute $1,000 each year to super will have an after-tax benefit at 65 of $238,200. But, if this is matched by a $1,000 contribution from the government, the after-tax benefit at 65 increases to $351,800. The example I have just used highlights the benefits that this legislation will bring to many hardworking Australians who hope to retire with a comfortable and secure income.From 1 July 2002, personal superannuation contributions made by low-income earners with employer superannuation support will attract an increase in government co-contribution. The maximum co-contribution of $1,000 will be payable to those on incomes of $20,000 or less. The maximum co-contribution will reduce by 8c for each $1 of income over $20,000, with some co-contribution payable to those with incomes up to $32,500. A minimum co-contribution of $20 will also apply as long as the person is below the income thresholds and has made some personal superannuation contributions during the year. This is something for low-income earners to strive for. This is saying: `This government is providing you with the commitment that, if you do your share, it will do its share.' Self-employed small business people will be unaffected, as they will be able to continue to claim a tax deduction for personal superannuation contributions. Another of our election commitments increases the amount of personal super contributions that are tax deductible from $3,000 to $5,000. Similarly, those with superannuation support but not employer superannuation support will be eligible for a taxation deduction for their contributions. The government co-contribution will be treated as a undeducted contribution, and this means that the co-contribution will not be subject to contributions tax when paid into the fund and also will not be taxed when paid out to a person as an end benefit. In situations where it is paid directly to the person, it will be treated as exempt income and will not attract income tax.Australians realise the importance of planning and saving for their retirement and for their future, with many of us hoping to live longer and make the most of our retirement. Australia's ageing population means a greater emphasis on individuals supporting themselves in retirement instead of receiving an age pension. Each Australian needs to realise the importance of providing enough income for their retirement so that the age pension is no longer relied on. This gives people self-sufficiency, and this is what they are seeking. Young people on a low-income wage now and looking forward to having independent means do not want to rely on the government when they retire. The coalition government are committed to a safe, easily understood and fair superannuation system producing high yields for its members. We are committed to encouraging the development of a culture of saving and investment from the earliest age possible. By implementing these changes to the current superannuation system, we will ensure that Australians are better prepared for their financial future, take more responsibility for their financial future and have something to work towards.21:59:008312O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr BRENDAN O'CONNOR00AN3BurkeALP00—I rise tonight to speak on the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. I think it is fair to say that, when Australians have sought improvements to superannuation, they have always looked to Labor. The reason they have done that is that, when it comes to thinking long-term about low-income earners, when it comes to looking at the retirement plans of those people in the community who are most in need of retirement savings, the Labor Party has, historically, provided a plan. If one were to look at the period since the election of the Hawke government, for example, one would see that, from 1983 up until 1996, there was a concerted effort by governments to ensure that low-income earners—ordinary workers—were enfranchised by having some form of superannuation. Indeed, not only was the idea of universal superannuation embraced by those governments but they also built upon their initial plans, up to the point where they stopped in 1996 when the Howard government was elected. That is not to say that the Howard government has not been busy, but there really has not been any net gain for those low-income earners who will be the beneficiaries, in some very negligible way, of these bills—if indeed they are passed. The most you can expect from this government with respect to super is, I suppose, the same as what you can expect from the government with respect to the way it handles public health—that is, Medicare. You just hope that it does not wreck it, intentionally or otherwise. You really cannot expect a great deal from this government with respect to this very important area of policy. The history of the Labor government's policy in this area is as follows. It was called the policy of three pillars, and it was formally known as the retirement income system. The first pillar of this retirement income system was to ensure that a minimum retirement income—that is, the age pension— would be established from budget revenue. At the time, it was set at the modest level of 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings—but it was a start. It was a very important start on the way to developing proper retirement savings for people who needed those savings.The second pillar was the system of compulsory contributions for employees, which are privately managed. Initially this dated from the 1986 national wage case when a far-reaching, forward-thinking accord between government, employers and unions supported a trade-off of a three per cent compulsory contribution to super in lieu of a three per cent wage increase. So there were some sacrifices made by employees in that they were forgoing a form of income to some extent. But it was this, with the employer contributions, that started to build the necessary requirements for those people who were to retire and, one hopes, enjoy a long and fruitful retirement. That second pillar process was built upon by the superannuation guarantee, which has now reached nine per cent.The third pillar was additional savings over and above the requisite minimum. This pillar provided for individual discretion and took into account individual circumstances, whether it be the income of those individuals or the tax concessions they could have had. Labor had planned to ensure that these things were put in place. Further to that, Labor had planned an additional six per cent co-contribution in order to reach a 15 per cent minimum by July 2001. I think it is fair to say that, in July last year, we would have had—if we had had Labor governments—a 15 per cent minimum for employees. That would certainly have ensured that they had the necessary requirements for a decent retirement. That is what workers expect, that is what they want and that is what a government that really cared about them would deliver. However, as we know, unfortunately, upon the election of this government six years ago, this policy was abandoned in the government's first term. This position has passed us by. The noble effort and the long-term ideal plan to have a 15 per cent surety for all employees with respect to super may have passed us by for some time. Possibly it will be a long time until we reach that minimum again. It strikes me as a little funny that the government will quite often raise issues about its forward thinking. We have the Treasurer making remarks about the Intergenerational Report—these great forward-thinking plans of the Treasurer! But, contrary to these ideas of the Treasurer, you have the same government—and the Treasurer holding the purse strings—making decisions to prevent these low-income earners, and indeed Australians at large, having a necessary sum of money. And that is what it is in the end: a necessary sum of money, a nest egg, for their retirement. I think that is a woeful decision by this government.Many may actually remember that the state of superannuation was grossly inequitable only 20 years ago. Low-paid workers not only received incomes which did not allow them to accumulate any discretionary moneys to put away for their super but were also very rarely in superannuation funds. The added disadvantage of being a low-income earner was not having the wherewithal to put funds into private superannuation. Compare that with high-income earners—quite often managers or people higher up in organisations—who were not only receiving moneys which allowed them a sufficient discretionary sum to save as an individual but also quite often in private super schemes.So this inequity existed and, indeed, it was an inequity that had to be rectified. I think to some extent the inequity has been rectified, because we now have an institutionalised universal super system. The problem with this bill is that it does not go far enough. It is very much an inferior policy to the Labor Party's plans pre 1996. Further to that, not only does it not go far enough but it finds a way to ensure that the top four per cent of salary earners in this country will receive, in effect, a tax cut. That is what the 15 per cent surcharge was when it was imposed by the Treasurer and this government in 1996—a tax. The Prime Minister did promise not to introduce new taxes, but that surcharge originally was a tax and it was imposed upon that four per cent. At the time, the Treasurer's comments as to why this surcharge was introduced in the first place were as follows:The measures I am announcing tonight are designed to make superannuation fairer.A major deficiency of the current system is that tax benefits for superannuation are overwhelmingly biased in favour of high income earners. For a person on the top tax rate, superannuation is a 33 percentage point tax concession while a person earning $20 000 receives a 5 percentage point tax concession. High income earners can take added advantage through salary sacrifice arrangements that are not available to lower income earners.I have to say, these were very pertinent comments by the Treasurer. Nonetheless, he imposed a tax he said he would not impose. The tax was placed upon the highest earning bracket of employees. But now I can see the reasons behind it, exactly as the Treasurer said: he was doing it to make the super system fairer. He was using taxation laws to say, `The higher paid can afford to pay some form of tax on superannuation,' so he made that decision. What is very difficult to understand is why the government has now chosen to reduce that tax. In other words, why is it that the top four per cent are going to receive a tax cut if this bill is passed while most of the millions of superannuants in Australia will receive nothing? That is something for this government to contemplate. Why would it choose to do that, having introduced the surcharge in the first place? There has been very little effort by this government to get superannuation right. Firstly, it imposes a tax it says it will not impose, then it decides to cut that tax to allow those high-income earners some relief. What really should be happening is what was planned in the first place by the Labor governments, and that was to ensure that income earners received a 15 per cent minimum. That is what has been recommended by experts in the field who have suggested that, if you want to ensure that ultimately we remove the increasing burden of paying pensions to people—the burden that is going to come about because of the demographic changes to our society—the only way to do that is to ensure that sufficient funds are put aside now so that they can be used when people retire. That was the contribution made by the Labor governments in the eighties and nineties, until 1996. Certainly that was something that should have been pursued by this government, but instead superannuation has been anathema to the government. It has never had an inclination towards providing superannuation.When the superannuation retirement plans were introduced into this House by Labor governments in the eighties, they were opposed by the then opposition. The Liberal and National parties did not want to have those contributions made for low-income earners. So I suppose it should not surprise me now—it should not surprise anyone now—that, when it comes to having a chance to advance the contributions to 15 per cent and to advance the future benefits for low- and middle-income earners, the government chooses not to make the hard decisions. Instead, the government makes a paltry effort—which I support in principle because it is moving in the right direction—to look after low-income earners and it decides instead to focus its energies on mitigating what seems to be an adverse effect on the rich wage earners, the wealthiest component of PAYE earners. That is the fundamental problem with this bill: it might make references to low-income earners, but the title should have added to it that it is also about tax cuts for high-income earners. There is no reference to that in the title, but I have to say there should be because that is the fundamental problem with this bill—that and the fact that it does not go far enough. I hope that the government thinks again.I know that the government is hoping to get this legislation through the Senate if it is passed through this House. Indeed, it is hoping that there is a possible trade-off that can be put to low-income earners and that, yes, we can be seen to be reducing the surcharge for high-income earners. But I really do think this bill is too clever by half. In the end, it does not ensure that superannuation does what it is intended to do. It does not fundamentally alter the problem that low-income earners will have, which is not having sufficient retirement funds after however many—up to 40—years they may have worked before they retire. I support certain provisions of the bill; I oppose some fundamentally. I think the reason that this is structurally flawed and the reason that the government has got it wrong is that, ultimately, it has not had any regard for the bulk of people who need superannuation. Instead, the government is playing a game with the tax it imposed in the first place and has made a piecemeal effort to look after low-income earners. But I do not think those low-income earners will be convinced that, in the end, this is anything more than a token effort.22:14:008314Tollner, David, MPMr TOLLNER00AN4SolomonLP10—I am baffled by the comments of the member for Burke. A paltry effort indeed! How much further from the truth can you possibly get? When you look at some of the things that we have faced in this country, there is a demographic imperative that things are done. The population aged 15 to 64 years, which encompasses much of the working age population, made up 67 per cent of Australians in 1999. This proportion increases slightly over the first 10 years of the projection, but then declines to 60 per cent in 2051. We have 5½ workers for every retiree now, compared to just over two workers for every retiree in 2051, according to these estimates. This ratio will further decline if the trends towards early retirement and young people spending longer in full-time education continue. The declining tax base and the increasing proportion of people who would otherwise be dependent on the age pension set the argument for doing more to promote self-funding of retirement incomes.The member for Burke calls the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 a paltry effort. I was interested to see that members opposite continually refer to Labor's wonderful policies prior to 1996 and their co-contribution policy. Their policy was that they would fund a three per cent co-contribution. When you look at this bill, it says that, for people who earn $20,000 or less, for every $1,000 they put into super the government will match that contribution with $1,000. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out that, on an income of $20,000, $1,000 is actually a five per cent contribution. If that is matched with the government contribution, it is a 10 per cent contribution: five and five is 10. With the compulsory amount of nine per cent going in, those low-income earners will be receiving a 19 per cent contribution to their super funds, and 10 per cent of that will be untaxed when it goes into the fund and untaxed when it comes out as a retirement income.It is interesting to listen to people on the other side of the House who say that low-income earners do not save and that saving is somehow restricted to people on high incomes. There may be some evidence of that, but there is also some evidence that saving is not necessarily based on income alone. In fact, I will quote a couple of examples. A very good friend of mine spent a couple of years on unemployment benefits, unable to find a job, but managed to save over one-quarter of those unemployment benefits and put money away. On the other hand, I have a friend who has worked for over 15 years earning incomes in excess of $100,000 a year. He finds himself now without a job and without a cent of savings. I do not believe at all that there is a great correlation between income and saving ability.For the member for Burke to suggest that this government is slack on super just defies reason. Stepping back to 1996, I can recall coming home late at night, watching question time on television and listening to members on the other side of the House absolutely bleating about the fact that the government was going to introduce a surcharge and how terrible it was. Now, a few years later, all of a sudden they are great supporters of the surcharge and they want to see it maintained. CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—What a berk he is.00AN4Tollner, David, MPMr TOLLNER—He is a berk. Slack on super! I ask you. There have been a number of positive initiatives since I came to this place. Just to name a couple, the ATO commissioner can now deposit unclaimed super guarantee vouchers into members' accounts. People may not understand the significance of this but, as of 3 June, when I last spoke on the issue, there were $356 million worth of these vouchers sitting there unclaimed. The government has also put in place a system of quarterly payments, working towards maximising the compliance of employers to pay on a quarterly basis. The other great initiative is that parents, grandparents and even friends will be able to choose to contribute to the retirement security of people who are under 18 years of age. Of course, this is a very big step. It will go a long way to addressing the current adequacy issues that I have just mentioned. For example, a parent who puts away just $20 a week for a newborn child will have created a superannuation base in excess of $28,000 for that child by the time they have reached 18 years of age. This is based on a modest real rate of return of around four per cent per annum and a low-cost, not-for-profit fund. By the time that child has reached retirement age of 65, that base funding alone will have grown to $180,000 in today's terms. It is my experience that it is the Aussie battler, the average income earning Australian, who is most set upon ensuring a better deal for their children than they have had for themselves. It will be these people—Australians of modest means who have worked hard all their lives—who will utilise this opportunity to put away $1,000 a year or around $20 a week to see their kids do better. These are measures that the government has put in place already. For the member for Burke to somehow suggest that this government is slack on super flies in the face of everything that is actually happening. I could not stand up here and speak about the adequacy of super without speaking about the impact of fees. I join with the member for Braddon in raising concerns about the way fees are charged by some funds. A typical retail fund contribution rate of over 25 per cent is required simply to match the adequacy level achieved by a 15 per cent contribution rate for a not-for-profit fund. When I talk about not-for-profit funds, I am talking about corporate funds, government funds and industry superannuation funds. The community, the taxpayer, should not have to fund the retirement income shortfall when it is caused by high-fee products that might have a few bells and whistles to aid marketing but that detract substantially from achieving any sort of retirement goal.The contributions and earnings taxes have a less detrimental impact on the adequacy of superannuation than do the fees charged on some superannuation products. No good purpose is served by trying to boost superannuation adequacy simply by removing contribution taxes, particularly when those on higher incomes are likely to benefit. A significant threat to adequacy comes from the financial services industry. That has been conveyed to me by a certified financial planner. He actually calls himself a certified `flogger of products'. He says that the financial services industry should be further regulated to treat adequacy if choice is introduced. Getting back to the fee side of things, I have some analysis here that my good friend Ross Christie, a certified financial planner, has provided me with. It compares a typical retail fund which does not charge an entry fee and has total fees of around 2.24 per cent per annum with a not-for-profit fund—a government fund, an industry superannuation fund or a corporate fund—that would typically charge fees of around 0.45 per cent per annum. At a nine per cent contribution rate, a person on average weekly earnings—and this is all in today's dollars—would receive around $177,000 at age 60, based on a modest six per cent return after taxes. The same contribution rate would produce a return of around $253,000 in a not-for-profit fund. That is a difference of some $70,000, which is a huge amount of money in today's dollars. For this reason, I join with the member for Braddon in encouraging the government to look at the issue of superannuation fund fees.As I say, the government co-contribution scheme is a boon for low-income earners. It will do a hell of a lot to address the adequacy problems faced by superannuation funds and retirees, today and in the future. I commend the bills to the House, and I hope that the other side will support the bills when they get to the Senate. Their dithering around and talking about paltry efforts and surcharge reductions does nothing to assist the argument. I commend the bills to the House.22:27:008316Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyIND00— In rising to speak on the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Bill 2002 and Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 this evening, I would like to put some emphasis on where the funds are going. I do not want to come into this place and say we are acting like Santa Claus in giving away taxpayers' money, but it does seem that, if the government believe that they can afford to do it, it is a very excellent thing to provide the incentive for people to save and to look after themselves in their retirement. That, of course, is the thrust of the co-contribution bill. That being the case, it will probably work out well for the government or the Treasury overall and may even be revenue neutral.Having said that, I acknowledge that there has been a very profound change in the saving patterns in Australia. An awful lot of people in Australia look to their own affairs and say, `Some 10, 15 or 20 years ago we were able to save and we find now that we cannot save anything.' We get an excellent document in our office called Monthly Economic and Social Indicators, which we call the MESI. I was rather intrigued to see in that document that a lot of the indications are that people are better off. Average weekly earnings taken against the rise in the CPI indicate that people are a lot better off now than they were, say, 15 years ago. I take the introduction of the policies which we often describe as economic rationalism as being the take-off point for funding and savings.Debate interrupted.Adjournment831610000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.831622:30:008316Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Just two years ago, Australia had a referendum on whether the Queen, through the Governor-General, or an Australian should be our head of state. Today, Australians find that we do not have any head of state; he is missing in action. The Governor-General left the country last Sunday, some 12 hours after the—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I remind the member for Grayndler that, under the standing orders, any reflection on Her Majesty or her representative in Australia is quite outside the standing orders and could not be entertained by the chamber.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would find it extraordinary that the standing orders would exclude a discussion of the appropriateness of the Governor-General's actions at this particular point in time. If I can continue, I would compare the vice-regal performance at the moment with that at the time of the tragedy in 1999 when 13 young Australians lost their lives in the canyon streams of Interlaken. The imagery from Switzerland would sadden any heart: 13 sets of relatives grieving for the loss of their adventurous children. However, these parents were not alone. Standing behind them was a quietly spoken man, a compassionate man, who was reaching out to the parents and giving them support in an extremely personal way. We all felt better because we knew he was there. We all knew him well because he had been there for us before.That man is, of course, Sir William Deane. He stood with us after some of the saddest events which have occurred in this country. He led the mourners at the site of the Port Arthur massacre, and he was on hand to support the survivors of the Thredbo landslide. Indeed, he was so thoughtful that he took to Interlaken sprigs of wattle from his own garden in Canberra to cast into the canyon streams. He was not there to talk to the media; he was not interested in developing his profile. He simply sought to bring people comfort. Sir William Deane did our great nation proud.This government has made political appointment after political appointment. Many of these appointments have shown what happens when you place ideology and favouritism above suitability for appointment. It is no coincidence that the destruction of trust in our elected officials and public institutions has occurred at the same time as our public bodies have been taken over by John Howard's supporters. One of the first steps was the decapitation of the Public Service through the removal of numerous departmental secretaries and their replacement with people he could trust. Twelve of the 14 appointments to the Industrial Relations Commission have been from an employer background. There has been the appointment of Ian Callinan, who prosecuted Lionel Murphy, to the High Court. There has been the appointment of Major Brian Watters from the Salvation Army as Chairman of the Australian National Council on Drugs. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has been thrown into turmoil over the appointment of a former pharmaceutical industry lobbyist.The ABC board has Donald Macdonald as chairman, as well as Michael Kroger and Judith Sloan. The ABC endured the embarrassing tenure of former Young Liberal activist Jonathan Shier. Carla Zampatti was appointed chair of SBS. At least 14 former Liberal MPs, ex-Premiers and senior Howard government staffers have been appointed to ambassadorial or senior overseas appointments, including to Washington, New York, Los Angeles, London and the IMF. The Board of the National Museum of Australia is chaired by former minister Tony Staley and contains John Howard's biographer and former Fraser media secretary, David Barnett; Christopher Pearson; and the daughter of BA Santamaria, Catherine Santamaria. Networking the Nation is chaired by former National Party Leader, Doug Anthony. But none of these appointments matters when compared with the appointment of the Queen's representative, our Governor-General.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I cannot allow that. I have allowed the member for Grayndler to follow a particular course, but I would remind the member for Grayndler of standing order 74, which says:No Member may use the name of Her Majesty, her representative in the Commonwealth, or her representative in a State, disrespectfully in debate, nor for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations.That is the standing order, as House of Representatives Practice indicates. I have been very generous in the way I have allowed the member for Grayndler to continue to date.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I say, in accepting that ruling, that it is time to restore faith in Australia's representatives. Let us start at the top. (Time expired)831822:35:008318King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10— Like many parts of our nation, the Eastern Suburbs community I represent is vitally interested in the provision of services for older Australians, particularly in relation to community and residential aged care. With over 14 per cent of the residents in the Wentworth electorate aged over 65—about two per cent more than the national average—the need for aged care in my electorate continues to grow. Those 20,000 people, along with many others in the community, are understandably concerned to ensure that, if the need ever arises, they have access to a range of accessible and high-quality aged care services.I am pleased that, since the election of this government, considerably more resources have been provided to the aged care sector. Between the fiscal year 1996-97 and the current financial year, funding has increased by 1.7 billion—or 68 per cent—for residential aged care. The number of community aged care packages over the same period has increased from 4,200 to an estimated 26,625. More funding increases are planned: an extra $500 million has been allocated to aged care homes, carers and professional staff over the next four years; and $70 million has been allocated for an additional 6,000 community aged care packages during that time. These substantial increases in resources have made a real difference to the accessibility of aged care in our nation. Importantly, they are allowing more people to stay in their homes longer. But challenges remain.Following my election last year, I was pleased to establish an early relationship with one of the leaders of aged care services in the eastern suburbs—Edina Aged Care, which is part of the Uniting Church's ageing and disability service. To ensure that I had a full appreciation of the issues facing the aged care sector and the needs of the eastern suburbs, Edina Aged Care agreed to convene an Eastern Suburbs Aged Care Forum with the major providers in March of this year. The forum was invaluable for me and I am pleased that it has also been the catalyst for a permanent forum that has strengthened the ability of aged care providers in the eastern suburbs to ensure that the needs of the local community are understood and are being met. The forum highlighted some of the challenges that I alluded to a moment ago. Local providers raised with me the following: the opportunity to better coordinate the provision of community care programs so that the programs are more easily understood and accessible; the challenges of meeting the capital needs of the aged care sector, especially in relation to high care facilities, as the sector seeks to meet the 2008 certification requirements; the pressures being faced by the aged care providers as they seek to offer adequate places and care for dementia suffers; and the need to ensure that government requirements and processes do not burden aged care providers with unreasonable red tape.I know that the Minister for Ageing, the member for Menzies, has been consulting widely since his appointment, and I am sure that these issues have been raised by others as well as the Eastern Suburbs Aged Care Forum through the representations I have made on their behalf. I know that the minister looks forward to meeting with the eastern suburbs forum in the not too distant future so that he can discuss these issues and the particular needs of the community in my area.I want to use this occasion to congratulate Edina on their leadership in the eastern suburbs. They are one of the many organisations that provide high quality services to older Australians in my electorate. I have been pleased to work with many others, ranging from the dedicated ACAT teams through to wonderful organisations like Jewishcare. Edina is perhaps the largest of these organisations and has provided assistance to almost 500 people in the area during the last 12 months. Since its establishment almost 40 years ago, I know it has established an excellent reputation for its work in providing community, hostel, high-care and self-care accommodation. I particularly acknowledge the work of the chairman, Michael Waterhouse, and the CEO, Robyn Cahoun.The Uniting Church provides aged care services across my state, and I believe that part of its success has been in ensuring that the provision of those services is delivered in very much a locally focused way. That approach is to be commended, as it allows each organisation that makes up the Uniting Church's overall contribution to respond to local needs and provide the type of leadership that Edina has been able to provide in the eastern suburbs.I look forward to working with the Eastern Suburbs Aged Care Forum to make sure that the expanding needs of older Australians in my area are met. There can be no more important goal than making sure that those who have given so much to our society throughout their lives are provided with readily accessible choices that meet their individual needs during their golden years.831922:40:008319Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—This week marks the sad anniversary of an event which, in spite of the number of people killed, has passed almost without mention. On 19 October last year, an unnamed 19-metre leaky Indonesian vessel sank on its way to Christmas Island, with the loss of 356 lives, including 71 children.As Australia mourns the loss of over 100 of our citizens who were killed in Bali, we struggle to comprehend the loss of human life on such a large scale. But our outpouring of grief and our determination to bring those responsible to justice is in stark contrast to our response to the tragedy last October. In Bali, relief and forensic services swung into action immediately after news of the bombing was received. But for the victims of Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel 8, or X—depending on which version of events you go by—there was no Australian assistance, and there has been a total denial of responsibility since then. A Defence Force briefing to the Prime Minister's People Smuggling Task Force advised on 18 October that two boats were expected at Christmas Island with what is described as `some risk of vessels in poor condition and rescue at sea.' On 20 October a further report stated that a vessel was grossly overloaded. What concern did we show for the 421 people in peril? What steps did we take to avert a disaster? We did nothing.On 23 October, a Federal Police intelligence report stated that the vessel was likely to be in international waters south of Java. Despite those reports, when news of the sinking was released, our Prime Minister was insisting, `It sank, I repeat, sunk in Indonesian waters, not in Australian waters. It sunk in Indonesian waters.' We simply washed our hands of any responsibility. Despite the presence of Australian patrols in the area and the knowledge that the leaky, overloaded vessel was headed for Christmas Island, we are told that nothing was done to locate the stricken vessel or to search for survivors. Of the 120 people who did not go down with the vessel, only 44 survived the 21 hours in the rough water before help arrived. Their tales of survival are harrowing. Children died in the arms of their parents. Exhaustion claimed all but the strongest. But in Australia few people seemed to care. Only the families of the victims and their close friends mourned the loss. And what did Australia do to help recover the bodies of those who died? Nothing. We simply denied all responsibility. I think of the family of Mr Ahmed Al-Zalimi, an Iraqi teacher who fled the regime of Saddam Hussein. Mr Al-Zalimi, who holds a temporary protection visa, lost his three beloved daughters in the tragedy— three beautiful little girls: Eman, aged nine; Zahra, aged seven; and Fatimah, aged five. They drowned while trying to reach their father in Australia. At the time we did not even have the compassion to allow Mr Al-Zalimi to visit his distraught wife in Indonesia. Who now mourns the victims of SIEVX, besides the immediate families? They were refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Palestine. There will be no national days of mourning for them. They belonged to no nation.When it comes to care and compassion, we reserve that for our own. For the fate of others, we care very little; we are indifferent to their suffering and death. I do not want to equate the tragedy of SIEVX with the terrorist attack in Bali. One was a deliberate and cold-blooded act of murder; the other was an accident that might have been prevented but was not. Both, however, show a level of indifference to human life and a failure to accept responsibility for the actions that result in death. The saga of SIEVX and the resulting inquiry into the actions of Australian authorities reveal a series of contradictions and inconsistencies. In the haste to pass the buck rather than accept responsibility, the first thing that is forgotten is that 356 lives were lost. It is understandable that we mourn for the lost lives in Bali more than the lost lives from SIEVX, but we cannot be indifferent—(Time expired)832022:45:008320Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—We regularly hear of shortages of health workers in rural and regional Australia. It was for this reason that last year I worked very closely with Dr Robert Hartemink and Sue Bryson of Bega to find a way to address nurse training on the far South Coast in my electorate. Dr Hartemink and Sue Bryson came to Canberra and had a meeting with Dr David Kemp, the then minister for education and training, about the possibility of seeing university places allocated to their region so that the Bachelor of Nursing course could be run. In Bega, we have an access centre which is run by three organisations—the University of Wollongong, New South Wales TAFE and Bega High School. It has been extremely successful since it was set up a couple of years ago. Wollongong University Vice-Chancellor, Gerard Sutton, said to me not that long ago how pleased he was at how that access centre is working in Bega and Batemans Bay. There are something like 55 or 60 full-time students doing degrees based in Bega and in Batemans Bay. It is really addressing the issue of education.We were trying to get nursing places allocated there so that this course could be run, and we had an excellent meeting with David Kemp. He certainly was interested in exploring ways in which we could get these places allocated. Normally it is up to the universities to do that allocation. We also talked with Charles Sturt University and the University of Wollongong. To cut a long story short, Wollongong University, having been able to get additional places provided by the federal government, specifically allocated 25 places to Bega access centre so the Bachelor of Nursing could be run there. It was absolutely wonderful and a credit to the people who were involved—Robert Hartemink and Sue Bryson, and Ann Montague at the access centre—that we succeeded in that. It has been hugely successful. It was last year that those places were allocated.This year we started with a bridging course. Twenty-one students have enrolled in that course, which is a joint University of Wollongong-TAFE course that allows enrolled nurses to go straight into the second year of the University of Wollongong registered nurse program, the Bachelor of Nursing. Most students come from the Bega Valley area, a group comes from the Batemans Bay-Moruya area, one is from Cooma and another from Canberra. Next year, most of the students who complete the bridging course will enrol in the Bachelor of Nursing. As well, about four students who started nursing degrees at other universities will enrol in the Bachelor of Nursing, making up the total of 25 places that were allocated. There is a conversion course—a TAFE commercial course—that upgrades the qualifications of enrolled nurses from certificate 3 to certificate 4. That is planned to run early in the year and there is already a waiting list of 14 people for that. The bridging course which has been run this year will be run again next year, in the second semester. There are 34 on the waiting list to do that bridging course. The University of Wollongong will then begin offering a first year in the Bachelor of Nursing in 2005.The problem is that TAFE will not run the enrolled nurse course at the TAFE in Bega. It is painfully obvious that this is the way to solve the problem of nurse training. We have Bega, Pambula, Bombala, Cooma, Moruya and Batemans Bay hospitals all willing to participate in the training aspect of it. It just makes so much sense it is not funny. If we look at the figures for the number of people wanting to enrol and to work in this area, clearly the demand is there. They have not even gone out and promoted it; it has just happened by word of mouth. But the New South Wales government will not agree to run the enrolled nurse course at the TAFE. It is absolute nonsense. Given that there is a state election coming up in March next year, I call on them to see sense and run the enrolled nurse course at Bega TAFE. Then we will have the whole process all the way through. We have beds being closed down in the Bega hospital because there is a shortage of nurses in the area. Here is a solution to overcome the problem of training nurses. We have done our bit in allocating university places; the New South Wales government must do theirs now. (Time expired)832122:50:008321Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00— Many of us in the Latrobe Valley hoped that in this term of the Howard government we would see the end of the debauched approach to regional development which they had demonstrated in previous terms in office. We had hoped that, in particular, we would see some consistency in the approach they brought to bear in the regional development policies which they put in place. What we have seen, however, is more of the same. Unfortunately, we have seen that the Sustainable Regions program in the Gippsland region has been a continuation of the inconsistent approach which has characterised all of the years of the Howard government administration. All we want on this side is for the Howard government to be fair dinkum about regional development. All we want is for them to allocate money for regional development based on need, not based on any pork-barrelling which the Liberal or National parties might think is politically expedient. In the Latrobe Valley, we have unquestionably gone through a difficult time of restructuring, mostly associated with the privatisation of the electricity industry in Victoria. There have been other factors which have complicated the effect of restructuring in our district: the decline in housing values and the massive loss of jobs in some of the other sectors which have been associated with the electricity industry in the Latrobe Valley.The government's own report, the Productivity Commission report into the Impact of competition policy reforms on rural and regional Australia, shows that, of the 39 regions that were modelled, the impact on the Latrobe Valley was unquestionably the worst as a result of that policy and other more general restructuring. The impact on our employment, as shown by the Productivity Commission report, was minus 8.1 per cent. The next highest was the East Gippsland region in the electorate that we in this place would know is that of the member for Gippsland, Peter McGauran, and it had an employment impact of minus 1.4 per cent. So in the Latrobe Valley our employment impact was minus 8.5 per cent and in Mr McGauran's electorate of Gippsland it was 1.35 per cent. That means that we have suffered a lot more than that area has. We had hoped that the Sustainable Regions program that was announced recently would try to address the areas of greatest need in the Gippsland region. That is after all what the government said this program would do. It was supposed to be a funding approach that would see the most resources targeted to the areas most in need. By any account, the area that is most in need in the Gippsland region is the Latrobe Valley. Our unemployment rate in Moe and Morwell is 11½ per cent or 12 per cent, compared to some parts of South and East Gippsland—in the electorate of the member for Gippsland—where it is four or five per cent.Obviously the Productivity Commission report had identified the Latrobe Valley as an area that had suffered a lot as a result of restructuring, and our unemployment statistics bear that out. So we held out some hope that, when the Sustainable Regions Gippsland package was announced, we would see a good portion of the $4 million for this year and of the $4 million remaining for the following two years. How disappointed we were to see that, of the more than $4 million announced, only around $500,000 has gone towards addressing unemployment in the Latrobe Valley area.The Latrobe Valley area makes up wholly one-third of what you would call the Gippsland region and is unquestionably the unemployment hot spot and the area that has suffered most from the effects of national competition policy and other restructuring. We should have received the lion's share of that funding. If the government had been serious about targeting the most resources to the areas most in need, they would have made sure that more funding went to the Latrobe Valley. They have obviously based their allocation of the funding on political need, not on the basis of seriously trying to address disadvantage. This means that this program, instead of addressing disadvantage and being remembered for doing a few good things around the place—such as addressing disadvantage in the Latrobe Valley—will be long remembered as just a filth-ridden National Party rort. (Time expired)832222:55:008322Hartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER00AMMCowperNP10—This week is Carers Week, and it is appropriate that we recognise the contribution of carers to our society. I was delighted to see the discussion of the role of carers as a matter of public importance in the House today, because the contribution of carers is indeed a matter of public importance. I would like to commend the member for Riverina and the member for Calwell for their contributions in acknowledging the role of carers in our community.We as a community recognise the brilliant efforts of our sporting heroes and the achievements of the stars of the entertainment industry, but carers in our community are our unsung heroes—people who give up a great deal, if not everything, to care for a loved one. Unfortunately, carers receive little or no recognition. That is why Carers Week is so important: to recognise the contribution of carers, the sacrifices that carers make and the tremendous amount of social capital that carers give to our society.In my electorate of Cowper there are many young carers, some as young as seven years old, undertaking tasks such as caring for a disabled parent. I think we would all agree that you could not have much of a childhood if at the age of seven you had to look after a disabled parent. The member for Riverina has pointed out the amazing statistic that there are 388,800 young carers under the age of 26 in Australia and that there are also 188,000 under the age of 18. While their friends are doing what young people do— playing sport, having a social life or starting a career—our young carers are typically enduring the endless routine tasks at home, looking after that loved one. There are also many carers in their senior years. For instance, a mother who has become frail with advancing years might be looking after her severely disabled son, who could be twice her size and weight, which would present a range of challenges. In the case of an elderly couple, one might have dementia and the other may be caring for them. It must be a very daunting task for our carers.As a community we offer respite services for our carers to give them a short break. I think that respite services are a vital contribution that we as a community can make to assist our carers. It is not surprising, when you know the type of people that carers are, that respite service providers will often tell me that many of the carers who are offered respite say that they only want one day off because they would not want to be away from their loved one for more than 24 hours. That just shows you the selfless nature of our carers.In the last budget there was additional funding of $80 million over four years to provide support for carers of older Australians, carers of people with dementia and ageing carers of people with disabilities. With regard to carers of older Australians, $30 million was provided to expand respite services, particularly in rural areas, to subsidise the cost of specialised equipment, home modifications and transport and to provide counselling services through carer resource centres. The government also committed $20 million to providing support for carers of people with dementia. There are approximately 160,000 people with dementia in Australia, many of whom are looked after by carers. The government also committed $30 million for such services as care packages for ageing carers of people with disabilities and to provide assistance with costs faced by carers, such as the cost of respite care, transport and equipment.Whilst these types of measures are welcome, our carers still carry an enormous burden in our community. Carers Week is great because we recognise the sacrifice that carers make in looking after loved ones, that they go without to provide that care. In my electorate there are a range of functions and activities being conducted as part of Carers Week. I would encourage all carers to participate in Carers Week wherever possible.The member for Riverina mentioned in the matter of public importance that, as a result of the horrific events in Bali, many Australian families will now face the immense challenge of assisting in the care of their loved ones. These families will indeed be pleased to have their son, daughter or brother home again, but our hearts must go out to them as they face the challenges ahead.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:008323House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.83231The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:832356OT4Mr CharlesTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at the St Joseph's Catholic Church, Boronia, Victoria 3155, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.56Mr CharlesOT4Mr Charles (from 56 citizens).832314009CWMs CorcoranTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at the Uniting Church, Parkdale, Victoria 3195, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.14Ms Corcoran009CWMs Corcoran (from 14 citizens).83241300AMVMr HuntTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at the St Mark's Anglican Church, Balnarring 3920, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.13Mr Hunt00AMVMr Hunt (from 13 citizens).832431UK6Mr Kelvin ThomsonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at the `Daybreak in Detention' Rally at North Melbourne 3051, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.31Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson (from 31 citizens).832431XJ6Mr AnthonyTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Federal Parliament in Australia.This petition of Australian residents draws the attention of the House to the necessity and urgency to help develop and commercialise alternative fuels.Your petitioners request that the Parliament immediately recognise the impact of petrol on people's lives (including price and health effects) and our state of dependency towards `oil' countries. We Australians want and deserve clean and renewable fuel supplies. We demand that the Parliament accelerate the commercialisation of ethanol, bio-diesel, methane, natural gas and other clean alternative fuels.Actions must be taken now to provide Australia's future generations with clean and renewable energies.31Mr AnthonyXJ6Mr Anthony (from 31 citizens).8324634K6Mr CausleyTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, plans by the French government to construct an international airport on the graves of Australian servicemen who died in France during World War I.Construction of this airport by the French government would desecrate the marked and unmarked graves of Australians who made the ultimate sacrifice.Australian servicemen played a vital role in the defence of France and their sacrifice will be dishonoured if their remains are buried under tonnes of concrete runways. Families of those who died may never know where their ancestors' remains are located and they may be unable to pay their proper respects to their loved ones.We the undersigned request the House to act quickly to protect the sacred remains of Australians who fought and died so that we may live in freedom.63Mr Causley4K6Mr Causley (from 63 citizens).83252109WF6Mr DanbyTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:We the citizens of Australia note that the practice of suicide bombing is a crime against humanity. This crime and its participants, organisers and supporters are guilty of a crime which has been committed against innocent civilians.Further, we the undersigned note that there is no moral, religious, or political justification for this crime.Your petitioners declare therefore that the perpetrators of these crimes should be prosecuted and punished by the appropriate international courts of justice.We the citizens of Australia call on the House to act immediately to facilitate a debate at the next United Nations conference to declare, clearly and unequivocally, that the practice of suicide bombing is a crime against humanity.2109Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 2,109 citizens).83257970L6Mrs DraperTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia believe World War II British, Polish and Allied ex-service personnel over 70 years of age are naturalised citizens of Australia and served in a theatre of war as recognised by the Australian government should be granted gold card benefits.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House legislate accordingly.797Mrs Draper0L6Mrs Draper (from 797 citizens).8325360L6Mrs DraperTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:To overturn the decision by Education Minister Brendan Nelson to terminate funding for the teaching of Asian languages in Australian schools.Students, parents, teachers and Australian business people draw to the attention of the House the major damage the termination of the National Asian Languages and Studies Strategy for Australian Schools (NALSAS) will have on Australia's future.This program is vital to the educational and economic interests of our nation.Moreover, its unnecessary termination will further jeopardise Australia's standing in Asia.Your petitioners request that the House call on the Education Minister to reverse his decision and to continue funding this valued investment in Australia's long-term national interest.36Mrs Draper0L6Mrs Draper (from 36 citizens).83254683VDr EmersonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain electors in the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House that a Medicare Office is not located in the western suburbs of Logan City.In the main, these signatories are from residents of the suburbs of Logan, the northern suburbs of Beaudesert Shire and the southern suburbs of Brisbane.This area has been consistently recognised in consecutive censuses as being amongst the highest population growth areas in the country.This area contains a large percentage of young families who have indicated that a Medicare Office in the area is important to them. In addition, the residents of this region have indicated that the office should be located in the Grand Plaza Shopping Centre which is a major regional centre and is the hub of retail, community and social interaction for the western suburbs of Logan City Council, together with the residents and signatories to the petition, believes it to be an ideal location for the establishment of this desperately required service.Your petitioners therefore request that the House and, in particular, the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator the Honourable Kay Patterson, to carefully consider establishing a Medicare Office in the western suburbs of Logan, preferably in the shopping centre precinct known as Grand Plaza.46Dr Emerson83VDr Emerson (from 46 citizens).832622100AMPMs GriersonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:A petition of Australian pensioners and superannuants residing in the Newcastle and Hunter Region who bring to the attention of the House that hardship and deprivation will be created to pensioners and Superannuants by the proposed increase to pharmaceutical prescription charges.We, the undersigned, petition the House of Representatives to reconsider the intended increase of the cost of prescriptions to pensioners as this severe impost will cause extreme hardship to most of Australia's senior citizens who are already experiencing difficulty due to the large monetary gaps in health care.221Ms Grierson00AMPMs Grierson (from 221 citizens).83267083NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:That increases to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in the 2002 budget will hit those that can least afford it, families and pensioners.That this Government should remember the commitments made before the 2001 election in regard to the cost of prescription drugs.We therefore pray that the House oppose the Howard-Costello plan to increase the cost of prescription drugs for Australians.70Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 70 citizens).832621LS4Mr Martin FergusonTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:That increases to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in the 2002 budget will hit those that can least afford it, families and pensioners.That this Government should remember the commitments made before the 2001 election in regard to the cost of prescription drugs.We therefore pray that the House oppose the Howard-Costello plan to increase the cost of prescription drugs for Australians.21Mr Martin FergusonLS4Mr Martin Ferguson (from 21 citizens).83262783NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government take action to improve our health system including access to dental care, preserve bulkbilling and to strengthen the Medicare system.Our health system needs to be strengthened to ensure that all Australians receive the health care they need—when they need it.The cessation of bulkbilling by many general practitioners, the closing of Medicare offices and the ceasing of the Commonwealth Dental Scheme as a direct result of government policy has caused great hardship to many local residents on low incomes particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to strengthen our health system, increase bulkbilling and reopen much needed Medicare offices as a matter of urgency.27Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 27 citizens).8326583NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the government reopen Belmont Medicare Office as there is no Medicare office between Charlestown and Lake Haven and there has been a drastic decline in the numbers of general practitioners bulkbilling.The closure of Belmont Medicare Office has caused great hardship to many local residents particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to ensure that Belmont Medicare Office is reopened as a matter of urgency.5Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 5 citizens).83272183NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at any plans to further privatise Telstra.Further privatisation of Telstra will result in the loss of thousands more Telstra jobs, worsening services to regional and rural Australia, and the loss of up to $1 billion a year for all Australians earned from Telstra profits.We believe these profits, both now and in the future, should be set aside to secure improved educational opportunities for our children, increased research and development funds for our scientists and doctors, and more money for rural and regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House reject any further sale of the Commonwealth's shares in Telstra and that the annual profits from Telstra be used for the benefit of all Australians.21Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 21 citizens).83274583NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We, the undersigned, call on the Federal Government to extend its plan to encourage doctors to outer metropolitan areas including the Central Coast.There is a chronic shortage of doctors in the area and people are waiting between seven and 14 days to get an appointment with their doctor.Doctors are overworked and people's lives are being put at risk by the chronic shortage of doctors in the area.The average doctor patient ratio throughout Australia is one doctor to 1,000 people; in the northern part of Wyong Shire the ratio is one doctor to 2,500 people.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House encourage doctors to outer metropolitan areas including the Central Coast.45Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 45 citizens).8327283NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the government hold a Royal Commission into the sexual abuse of children in Australia.In light of recent cases, we believe it is important that the perpetrators of these crimes should be brought to justice and measures taken to ensure that cases like these are not allowed to happen again.Child sexual abuse is a blight on our community and we must work together to eradicate it.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that a Royal Commission is held as a matter of urgency.2Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 2 citizens).832719600AN2Ms JacksonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to our concern that:the Howard-Anderson Government plans to fully privatise the Australian people's 50.1 per cent share of Telstra as stated in the Government's own 2001 Budget papers;a fully privatised Telstra will focus on profits not people; andservices will suffer under a fully privatised Telstra, particularly in outer metropolitan, rural and regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to oppose the Howard-Anderson Government's plans to fully privatise Telstra.196Ms Jackson00AN2Ms Jackson (from 196 citizens).832724MH4Mr JullTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the unnecessary and unethical use of human embryos in stem cell research.Your petitioners urge the House to support an amendment to the proposed national legislation on cloning and related matters, and to ban all destructive experimentation of human embryos.Your petitioners urge the House to support instead research into the use of adult stem cells.24Mr JullMH4Mr Jull (from 24 citizens).8328471JK6Mr McClellandTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that:The Federal Government has approved a grant of $5 million to fund a facility in Churchill, Victoria, for the breeding of laboratory monkeys to be used in research.The billions of dollars invested annually in animal research would be put to much more efficient, effective and humane use if redirected to clinical and epidemiological research and public health programs.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:Rescind the grant to fund the building of a facility for the breeding of monkeys which will be harmed or killed in the course of research;Instead provide funding for the development and utilisation of research techniques which do not use animals at any stage.471Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland (from 471 citizens).832856JK6Mr McClellandTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain general pensioner, superannuant and self funded retiree citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House that in view of the difficult circumstances that such citizens are experiencing with their reducing quality of life due to a burgeoning cost of living created by the GST, there exists an urgent need to upgrade the Pension.Notwithstanding periodic increases to the Pension and other once only, much qualified gratuities, we strongly contend that the basic formula for the Pension is a source of hardship in that it has been set too low even for normal circumstances and in comparison to many European Pensions, let alone in the current climate of increased prices, fees and premiums in Australia.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House act to increase the Base Formula of the Pension to equal 35% of the Adult Male Average Weekly Earnings (AMAWE). Your petitioners also pray that the House act to extend Pensioner Concessions, particularly to superannuants and retirees who are assets rich but whom possess low finances.56Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland (from 56 citizens).83281934T4Mr MelhamTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House that:A considerable number of Australian citizens do not agree with Australia engaging in a first strike military action against Iraq or any other country. We also state that:Not in our name:Will we support aggressive war against countries that do not directly threaten the security of Australia;Will we support the erosion of civil liberties in Australia through the use of draconian anti-terrorist legislation;Will we support the Australian government acting in contempt of its international legal and moral responsibilities.And request the House to fully consult with the citizens of Australia before committing this nation to war.193Mr Melham4T4Mr Melham (from 193 citizens).8328425783MMs PlibersekTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Act 2001 and the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Act 2002 enacted by the House removes the right of entry of asylum seekers to enter Australia's migration zone for the purposes of seeking asylum in Australia. By removing this right Australia's refugee policy is now in direct opposition to Catholic Social Teaching which states that `among a person's personal rights we must include their right to enter a country in which their hopes to be able to provide more fittingly for themselves and their dependents. It is therefore the duty of State officials to accept such immigrants...' [John XXXIII Encyclical Letter on Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justice, and Liberty, Pacem in Terris, 11 April 1963, 106].Your petitioners therefore request the House as a matter of urgency enact legislation repealing the Migration Amendment) Excision from Migration Zone) Act 2001 and the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Act 2002 restoring the right of entry to all asylum seekers wishing to seek asylum in Australia.4257Ms Plibersek83MMs Plibersek (from 4,257 citizens).832916489HV5Mr WakelinTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the dangerous state of the Sturt Highway in South Australia. The highway is in urgent need of treatment to bring it to an acceptable National Highway standard. There have been more than 1,000 crashes on the Highway since 1996, with 55 people killed and more than 485 injured, reflecting the price that drivers have to pay for the delay in providing funding for much needed improvements.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to demand the Minister for Transport reverse the 2002-03 budget decision to slow down work on overtaking lanes on the Sturt Highway and honour his promise that all overtaking lanes, designed to make the highway safer, will be completed by 2004-05.16489Mr WakelinHV5Mr Wakelin (from 16,489 citizens).8329140WN6Mr Ian MacfarlaneTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled:We, the undersigned residents of Australia ask that the House of Representatives consider the health and welfare of the present and future residents of this country and the environmental impacts of possible negative impacts relating to the visits of nuclear powered and armed vessels into Australian ports.Nuclear navies are not welcome here whatever the colour of their flags.The recent spate of accidents involving nuclear-powered submarines should be enough to convince all governments that the risk to the environment of these floating Chernobyls is a risk we don't have to take.Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Parliament legislate to prevent all visits of nuclear armed/powered vessels to Australian ports and waters.And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.140Mr Ian MacfarlaneWN6Mr Ian Macfarlane (from 140 citizens).83303425V5Mr Stephen SmithTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled:We, the undersigned residents of Australia ask that the House of Representatives consider the health and welfare of the present and future residents of this country and the environmental impacts of possible negative impacts relating to the visits of nuclear powered and armed vessels into Australian ports.Nuclear navies are not welcome here whatever the colour of their flags.The recent spate of accidents involving nuclear-powered submarines should be enough to convince all governments that the risk to the environment of these floating Chernobyls is a risk we don't have to take.Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Parliament legislate to prevent all visits of nuclear armed/powered vessels to Australian ports and waters.And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.342Mr Stephen Smith5V5Mr Stephen Smith (from 342 citizens).Petitions received.Notices8330The following notices were given:XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to broadcasting, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a Bill for an Act to protect volunteers working for the Commonwealth from civil liability, and for related purposes.2002-10-22—————The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Gambaro) took the chair at 4.01 p.m.Miscellaneous8331Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Abbott:That the House take note of the following paper.That this House:(1) expresses its outrage and condemnation at the barbaric terrorist bombings which took place in Bali on 12 October 2002;(2) extends its deepest and heartfelt sympathy to the families and loved ones of those Australians killed, missing or injured in this brutal and despicable attack;(3) offers its condolences to the families and friends of the Indonesians and citizens of other countries who have been killed or injured;(4) condemns those who employ terror and indiscriminate violence against innocent people;(5) commits the Australian government to work with the Indonesian government and others to bring those who are guilty of this horrendous crime, and all those who harbour and support them, to justice; and(6) reaffirms Australia's commitment to continue the war against terrorism in our region and in the rest of the world.16:01:008331Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I thank the House for the opportunity to register my personal sorrow about the tragedy of the Sari nightclub in Kuta, Bali only a week ago. Several families from my electorate have been directly affected by this tragedy, and my thoughts and prayers are with them. I am sure nothing quite prepared us for the shock of hearing the news of that horrific bombing in Bali. Our young people, who were in the prime of life, out enjoying themselves, were suddenly cut down. It is the loss of innocence for Australia—it is the first time we have seen such a terrorist attack directly on the people of Australia. It will have an impact on young lives and families across this nation; they will never be quite the same.I walked into the Qantas lounge on Monday morning and had my first contact with those who were directly affected. This was a close friend of Jodie Wallace, who was one of the people missing in Bali. I was introduced to her by the Qantas flight attendant who was on duty. She outlined the problems of her close friend being missing. They hoped that she had simply not been registered at the hospitals. I rang back when I arrived in Canberra and began the search, through Foreign Affairs, of the hospitals in Bali to see if she had maybe gone there. They thought maybe she was on a drip, unconscious and not able to register. Those frantic phone calls became more desperate as the day wore on and the choices were narrowed. I spoke to the family and they said they had been advised by Foreign Affairs that all of the injured had been transferred to Darwin. It was becoming clear to them that Jodie would not be coming home, and this had a great impact on them. I spoke to various members of the family. They were concerned about several things. Probably the most uncaring thing that happened was that a member of the press phoned up Jodie Wallace's mum to say, `We think there is a woman who is close to matching the description of your daughter and is just having an operation. We think it might be her. So you should check it out because she is about to go in for an operation.' So they rang me, and we then proceeded to immediately get on to the health minister's office, who phoned, and they checked all of the records. Of course, it was not true. So they had been up; they had been down. The next day, the families of two missing girls picked up the afternoon's papers to find that the two girls, who were connected through the families, were both listed as confirmed dead. They have still not been confirmed dead; they are still missing. The media are under pressure at this time, but it was very unfeeling that this happened.Firstly, there were Jodie Wallace and her immediate family, who I spoke to at length. Then there was Mrs Renae Marie Anderson, who is missing. I spoke to her husband, Jason Anderson, who could not quite believe that his wife was not coming home. We spoke to the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, and it was followed up in terms of whether they had any records at all. I spoke to the extended family: his mother and father, and Penny Butler, who is a cousin of Renae Anderson. She was there with a group of three girls but on that particular night she decided she was a bit tired and would not go out to the Sari Club, and so she survived. I talked to her on the phone, and of course she was absolutely traumatised by the events and devastated in terms of what had happened to the three girls that were there with her. The whole family was trying to come to terms with that.I should mention that, apart from living in my electorate, Renae Anderson worked in my electorate. She and Simone Jane Hanley were sisters. This morning I spoke to their mother, Mary Jane Hanley, who is in Perth. They were both working for Toyota: Renae Anderson was working as a receptionist and Simone Jane Hanley, who is in hospital in Perth with burns to 75 per cent of her body, was a marketing and advertising coordinator with Toyota. Toyota have been absolutely fabulous. They have paid for all expenses and to fly family members up to Jakarta. They have had the Toyota reps to assist in terms of finding their way around and have taken them to the right places. So Toyota have been marvellous to them, but of course that does not take away the pain.I spoke to Mary Jane Hanley this morning, as I said, who is the mother of both Renae Anderson, who is missing, and Simone Jane Hanley, who is the girl with burns to 75 per cent of her body. I asked how she was, and she said, `It's quite amazing. If somebody had said to me 10 days ago that I would be in this situation, I would say to them that there is no way I could cope with this situation. But somehow you find an inner strength to go on. The fact is that I don't know has happened to one of my girls, who is missing, but I have got one of them here. She is in hospital and I have been told it is going to be a six-month exercise. I am going to go back for a couple of days to get all my things so I can move over to Perth.' She said, `We live in hope; small steps at a time.' Simone Jane Hanley has been put in a drug-induced coma to increase the likelihood of survival. They are concerned that she is still on dialysis, but her use of oxygen has reduced, so they feel that there are signs that she is coming round.Francoise Rose Dahan, who is missing, is also related to this group. The three of them had just been out for a meal together and had met some members of the Greek community. They all decided that they were going to go over to the Sari Club and they had just walked in when the bomb exploded. I spoke to Francoise Dahan's partner, Damon Snape, who is just devastated. He was so devastated he could barely speak. He said to me, `It was fantastic for the Prime Minister to go up to Bali, as well as the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister, but we could also get a note from them saying they are thinking about us. I don't know what to do. My world has stopped.' He said, `We had just extended our home, and we have got everything together and were looking forward to life together.' They were a young couple who had both just turned 30, in my electorate, living close to the beach. Life was good, and suddenly this devastating act of evil and terrorism just burst upon them. So these are the people in my electorate that have been so affected. As I mentioned, three of them are confirmed missing, and there is Simone Jane Hanley, who is in Perth with these terrible burns.May I record my thanks to the medical staff in Bali, in Darwin and in Perth. According to Mrs Hanley, the staff in the hospital in Perth have been absolutely marvellous. She has no criticism at all of the way it has been handled. I record my thanks to the RAAF—the evacuation of the injured out of Bali was just first-rate—and the forensic officers who have this awful task of trying to match up dental records, fingerprints and DNA with the bodies. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have been just terrific—all of the people who were contacted by them, once they became involved with them, could not sing their praises more highly. I need to acknowledge all the people locally—my constituents. I went to a service in front of the flagpole in the mall at Cronulla, and people came out spontaneously. Everyone in the community looked shocked. One of the relatives was quietly weeping near the flagpole. There was a service by the sea and people threw flowers on the sea, showing their emotion and the depth of their feeling about this terrible tragedy. Across Australia we have had this outpouring of grief and sympathy for those who have been so badly affected.As a nation, I think it is important to avoid any temptation for internal recrimination or finger-pointing. Our enemies are outside. We must unite and move forward together to secure Australia against terrorism. The atrocity in Bali marks the end of our dream that Australia would be unaffected by the new global nature of terrorism. We have always liked to think that, despite being engaged with the world stage, our geographical isolation somehow made us immune from any terrorist threat. We had an email from one of our friends in New York who said, `I always thought that you could be totally safe in Australia. Perhaps that is not the case anymore.'In conclusion, it is important that we recognise that the taking of innocent lives to make a political point can never be justified. It is wrong and evil at every moral level. No religion, including Islam, condones such violence. This particular act was evil. It was evil because of its timing, conceived to cause maximum casualties; it was evil because its targets were young people—young people that were just simply having a good time. What should our response be? The member for Franklin heard me the other night talk about a program on that terrible air crash at Lockerbie in Britain where so many people were killed. The father of one young victim trying to find some meaning described how he went into his daughter's room and picked up the Bible and found in Romans 12:21 this passage: Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.That is our challenge.10000Gambaro, Teresa (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Gambaro)—Before I call on the honourable member for Lowe, I would like to welcome our young visitors to the Main Committee and our other visitors. It gets a bit lonely in here sometimes, so welcome to the Main Committee. The question is that the House take note of the paper, and I call the honourable member for Lowe.16:13:008334Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I begin by offering my prayers and heartfelt sympathy to all of the families who lost their loved ones in the Bali tragedy. Last Friday there was a report in the Sydney Morning Herald concerning one of my constituents, Mrs Evangelia Betmalic. Mrs Betmalic lost her only daughter, Christine, in Bali. Christine had been one of four bridesmaids at a wedding and the bridesmaids had joined the bride and groom on a holiday in Bali. On Saturday evening, the bride became sick at a quarter past 10 and she and her husband went back to the hotel, and we know what happened to the four bridesmaids.The report in the Sydney Morning Herald suggested that the government departments and agencies were not doing enough to provide information about Christine to her mother. Although the Betmalic family had not approached my office, I visited Mrs Betmalic late last Friday and spent an hour with her and her husband. They were clearly paralysed by unbearable grief and pain, having lost their only daughter and the other three, who were related by marriage and all very close friends. This was devastating. Having rung the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I found there had been considerable contact with Mrs Betmalic to offer support and to explain the circumstances to the family. But I am satisfied that the family were just absolutely numb in their suffering and did not realise that the government were doing everything, in a very difficult situation, to support the family. Mrs Betmalic told me, when I asked her what I might be able to do, that she wanted to go to Bali just to touch the shoes of her daughter.I want to pay tribute to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I want to pay tribute to the Hon. Chris Gallus, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for having contacted Mrs Betmalic. I also want to pay tribute to Centrelink, who are making the arrangements for not only Mrs Betmalic and her husband to go on a trip to Bali but also Mrs Betmalic's brother and sister to join them to see where Christine died. The plane will be leaving Mascot Airport via Perth at 5.10 p.m. today—in less than an hour. I also want to pay tribute to Qantas, who provided very economical fares of approximately $700 to Mrs Betmalic's brother and sister so that they could join Mrs Betmalic and her husband and support them in Bali in this very difficult time.Australia is a very big island and, being an island, people living on the island feel safer, believing themselves to be far away from the so-called trouble spots on our planet. It is often referred to as splendid isolation. Since Federation, Australia has prided itself on its liberal democracy, confirmed by Australia's more recent embracing of a multicultural Australia, boasting that Australia enjoys an unparalleled existence of peace and harmony of peoples from all races and cultures. The very foundation of the values we hold, values we share with Britain and the United States, arises from the jurisprudential values of freedom, the rule of law, universalism—meaning one set of rights for all—which in turn is founded on the Christian ethic that all persons are made in the image of God and therefore all persons are of equal value in the law.Following the continued success of multicultural Australia, have we deluded ourselves that we are the world's friend? Migrants of all races and nationalities have come to Australia in the belief that they can raise their children in safety and in a climate of good health and have the opportunity to provide their families with an unparalleled quality of life. This ideology is no accident. It is the result of policies that are based on universalism and jurisprudence that have taken thousands of years in the Judeo-Christian tradition to develop. In turn, it has led to the free liberalism that results in scientific endeavour and the ongoing development of art and culture. From this flows those rights and duties which we all enjoy. As a consequence, I believe we have deluded ourselves that all people of the world would embrace such ideology, in time coming to see the virtues of such beliefs and philosophy. Clearly, not all do. After last week, nothing could be further from the truth.The events in Bali drive home brutally, forcefully and painfully that we are not loved by everyone. Viewed by others, we were all too willing participants in the 1991 Gulf War. We participated in direct combat missions in other places like the Kashmir border between Pakistan and India. Others see us as having supplied troops and money to other causes. Even putting direct military involvement aside, we are held by some to be synonymous with the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Indeed, we are seen as the staunchest ally of those nations and hence hated along with them.There are some people throughout the world who, far from our own tendencies to think so highly of our way of life, hold us in absolute contempt. They see our immigration laws as violently discriminatory against those who have no respect for the Australian laws which underpin our cherished way of life. Some people believe they have an untrammelled right to simply enter Australia, deny the justification of our laws and, with moral and divine sanction, simply denounce us.Let us never be in any doubt that Australia's pride can sometimes affect our thinking, especially in relation to others who might hold radically different views about Australia. The reason why this shocks Australia is that, in like-minded arrogance, we have simply paid scant attention to their thoughts, ideologies and beliefs. I quote from the BBC news article entitled `Australians in shock after Bali', dated 13 October 2002:This Bali bomb attack has come as an enormous shock to the Australian public, as friends and relatives of the hundreds of people visiting the Indonesian island anxiously wait for news.Australians are accustomed to viewing themselves as insulated from dangers faced elsewhere in the world by virtue of the country's remoteness.It is now time to revisit our own security mechanisms in Australia, and I am not referring to what might be considered as antiterrorist measures. That is not enough, for I suspect that terrorists and their supporters are already here spying, probing and learning.So, what should we do about it? I believe we need to educate and inculcate in our children basic constitutional knowledge of what freedom is, how to think with reason and logic, what is actual truth, moral law, the natural law, universalism, natural justice and the rule of law, moral and cultural relativism, and the evil that leads some people to espouse moral reasoning that leads to the barbaric and callous atrocities visited on human beings—more than 100 of our own in Bali on Saturday, 12 October.This amounts to a fundamental rethink of education in Australia. Australia's best defence is to ensure all Australians understand whence their values derive. A better understanding of our values allows us to better defend them. I conclude with the famous quote of Charles Rice in his text, 50 Questions And Answers on the Natural Law. People who hear this quote will not necessarily immediately understand its significance, but in light of the Bali atrocity I trust the quote will make more sense. He is quoted as saying:Jurisprudence kills people.Jurisprudence kills lots of people. Jurisprudence is the reason why nearly 3,000 people died in the World Trade towers and the Pentagon, and why almost 200 people died in Bali. Jurisprudence is the reason for the death and carnage in the Middle East, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and so on. Jurisprudence is the reason why a single mother in Northern Nigeria is to be stoned to death for the heinous crime of having her baby outside wedlock. Jurisprudence matters. `Jurisprudence' is a word that many people have never heard of, yet in my opinion it is one of the most important words they will ever know in the 21st century. Every child needs to be taught it, know it, embrace it and learn what is the scientific morality of good law.16:24:008336Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—In reading, listening to and observing the various comments and emotions of the last almost 10 days, words are always going to be inadequate. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have all responded magnificently, and I am grateful for the leadership that they have displayed. They are a credit to our parliament.I also would like to place on the record my profound appreciation of the people who are directly involved in all the emergency services, the Defence people, the people at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, all the health people involved in our hospitals—our nurses—and particularly the incredible individual, selfless heroism and volunteer effort of countless Australians—probably in the thousands.There are many dimensions to the events of Bali, and I will cover just three or four of them. The first I will mention is that, at a personal level, I do not remember a situation in my lifetime where just about every Australian, if not every Australian, has been touched very directly or very closely. One of my sons was in the Sari bar exactly 12 months to the minute before this event occurred—in exactly the same situation as when, from a South Australian perspective, the young South Australian died. He was there as part of a successful celebration of the South Australian National Football League premiers. He was there as a reserve player and, uncannily, he was of a very similar occupation to the young man that died. So all of us have our linkages, all of us have our connections to the tragedy. We go to the despair, the anger and the inevitable questions—and, as I said, words are inadequate.In the future, we will, I guess, all remember the situation in our own way, but I think I will remember the terrible sadness of it all and the pain inflicted on those closely affected. I will remember the incredible courage of so many. Looking to the future, we will need all our wisdom, our strength, our unity, our purpose, our skills, our prayers, our support, our solutions, our resolve and our spirit to move our nation forward. I am sure that that will occur, because within the spirit and within the words of those so closely touched—we all know them; we have seen them in the images on the media—we know that, if they have that strength, those of us who are not so sadly touched are bound to have at least as much strength.In conclusion, can I make a comment about murder and murderers—I refuse to use the other words—because that is what it is. However it is dressed up, whatever justification some might like to use, it is murder and was perpetrated by murderers, and we as Australians have a responsibility to respond in a measured way to meet the challenges of the future.16:29:008336Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Like all members of this House and people throughout Australia, I am in a state of shock and I feel numb about what happened in Bali on 12 October. Our world, as a result, is far less secure. `Down under' is far less secure. September 11 prepared us, in a way, for what was to happen. It was over there. But unfortunately over there has progressively become over here, down under. Clearly there has been a security—or insecurity—pall over Australia, commencing with the Tampa affair, exacerbated by September 11 and constantly reinforced by talk of antiterrorism and acts of terrorism, of war in Afghanistan, possible military action against Iraq, daily doses of violence in Palestine and Israel, and exposed and real terrorist threats in the Philippines and Singapore. But for all that, it was not Australia.Saturday, 12 October in Bali has changed this. Bali and Australia have a very close tie. Nearly every travel agent window that you see prominently displays advertisements for a Bali holiday, and Australians took up the Bali invitation in droves. It is one of the key holiday playgrounds and cultural destinations for Australians. Bali is a beautiful place with a wonderful people. It is an oasis of fun. It was a symbol of enjoyment, friendship, peace and carefreeness. It was a mecca for young people from throughout the world, but especially young Australians. Bali also played an important part in Indonesia's economy, bringing in much needed foreign income and investment, particularly through tourism. Bali is an oasis of peace and enterprise. As I said, it is a place of fun. Perversely, it was because of this that it appears to have been targeted by extremist groups to gain attention to their cause. There is no doubt that this is based on a conflict of values. The cowardly perpetrators of this act must be caught. It is crucial not only that every effort be made to find those responsible and bring them to justice but also that steps be taken to further enhance our ability to advise and protect our citizens abroad and at home. I join everyone in this parliament and the people of my electorate of Braddon on the north-west coast of Tasmania in expressing my sympathy for all the victims of the Bali bombing. What makes this even more horrendous is the number of Australians killed, injured and traumatised by the carnage in Kuta. Our media has been full of the terror, heroism and analysis of this terrible event. Harrowing stories have sickened us to the core of our national psyche. Yet through the horror have emerged stories of great courage, mateship, compassion and concern. Australians have demonstrated remarkable qualities under great duress. Our numerous emergency services personnel, members of the military forces, health services personnel, individual doctors and nurses, hospital workers, aid workers, transport organisations and government agencies have done a remarkable job and deserve our sincere thanks.Our hearts go out to the Balinese people. They were equally innocent victims of this calculated, brutal act. There are stories of their bravery, incredible friendship and compassion. The Balinese economy relies very heavily on tourism, and I believe over 10,000 Balinese have already been affected by unemployment or the prospects of it. I am pleased to note the government's stated intention to assist the Balinese people in a variety of ways, particularly in developing health facilities and assisting individual Balinese who were injured in Kuta during the bombing. I was also disturbed to read a letter to the editor in my own newspaper criticising the government for not carrying out increased expenditure on health services in Australia to the detriment of the Balinese people. I found that extraordinary.Like all Australians, I hope that Bali soon recovers and returns to being a tourist oasis. We can do this by hunting down and punishing those who would perpetrate similar crimes throughout our region, by working with our regional neighbours to counter such terrorist acts and by tourists specifically returning to Bali to demonstrate their determination not to let this act overtly change our way of life. Some 92 Australians are believed to have been killed in Bali. Of the 92, 41 are from New South Wales, 23 from Victoria, 15 from Western Australia, eight from Queensland, three from South Australia, one from my home state of Tasmania and one expatriate. The total confirmed dead is 187, and about 166 are still to be formally identified. Twenty-three nationalities are among the dead or injured. The Bali murders must harden our resolve to counter terrorist acts in our region. It is important that our resources are prioritised for this purpose. Terrorism has struck at our doorstep. We do not know for sure who the cowardly murderers are, but we will find out and we will do everything we can to bring them to justice. We do not know for sure their intention beyond senseless, cowardly evil. This happened in a location well known to be frequented by Australians. Australia will not be the same again after 12 October 2002. We have entered a new era of instability in South-East Asia, and this may not be, God forbid, the last attack. We face new uncertainties. We will be targets in future for radical terrorist groups because of what we are. We do not have an option to be neutral. My family was in Bali, at Kuta, only four weeks ago. I can but begin to imagine how I would have felt if I had received news about my family being injured, or worse, in such an event as 12 October. On behalf of my family, I wish to offer my condolences to all those families—Australian, Balinese and of many other nations—who have been affected by this act of evil. We must not forget the pain and suffering of those affected, especially those families who have to live with this suffering every day of their lives. For me, the impact of the Bali bombing was like the impact of Port Arthur—tragically, also a tourist holiday place. Tasmania's innocence was lost on that day, but we have learned to deal with this loss and this grief. Port Arthur continues to figure as a tourist destination but it is not the same, and nor will Australia be after 12 October.16:35:008338Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—It is with great sadness that I rise to speak today. The events of the past week and a half have impacted upon every Australian. Together we have shared the grief and the sorrow of every family who has lost a loved one, or is nursing an injured family member. Like most of the members of this House, and all Australians, I too recall the feeling of horror and heartbreak on hearing of the deadly blast that has killed so many Australians. My next fear, that friends and the people in my electorate of Riverina would lose a beloved family member, soon became a reality. My electorate of Riverina has lost three of its brightest sons.Bali is a destination so many Australians, young and old, have travelled to. It is a place we feel safe and comfortable in, surrounded by friendly locals who are so keen to hear about our lucky country. It is fun: it is surrounded by sun, surf and good times. Never had we imagined that terror could strike in such an idyllic place. David Mavroudis was in Bali to relax after a hard football season. Aged 28, David died alongside his football mates doing what he loved most. Photos taken just hours before the event tell of the good time that David was having. David was the only son of John and Colleen Mavroudis of Wagga Wagga and a loving brother to his sister, Jane.David started playing rugby league with the Magpies in the under-sevens in the early 1980s and worked his way up to play first grade in 1994 and 1995. His love of football continued as he moved to Moree for work, and then to Bathurst, ensuring he could always be found on a football field. After moving to Sydney in 1999, he quickly found himself at home with the Coogee Dolphins. The Dolphins included a number of former Riverina boys, and no doubt they shared so many stories of home. Of the 14 Dolphin players in Bali, six are believed to have passed away. Remembered for his caring attitude and concern for others, David loved his family and he loved life. He always made sure he kept in close contact with his family and friends, and he had been looking forward to a long awaited holiday.The Mavroudis family, friends of the Hulls, now coming to terms with their loss, have received an amazing amount of support from the Wagga community. More than 200 people have visited the family, and this level of support is being repeated right around my electorate in the towns of Leeton and Coolamon, and for this I am incredibly proud of the people I represent. Many are facing drought, but in times of trouble they rally around those who need them most and they offer any support that they can. Whilst this is a heartbreaking time that we will carry with us forever, I am truly proud to be an Australian and a Riverina Australian. David was educated at Sacred Heart Primary School, St Michael's Regional High School and Trinity Senior High School and he studied medical laboratory science at Charles Sturt University before obtaining his first job at Moree, working in a pathology lab. He then moved to Bathurst. He later moved to Coogee, as I said, but was always in constant contact with friends and family in Wagga Wagga. After arriving in Sydney, David worked part time in a laboratory while studying computer programming and on completion of his degree he started work as a computer programmer with a Sydney firm.An accomplished sportsman, David has represented New South Wales in gymnastics as well as playing rugby league for group 9 in Wagga Wagga and the Riverina. He played halfback for Wagga Magpies, Moree Boars and St Patrick's Bathurst and Coogee Dolphins. David also loved horseracing. Melbourne Cup winning jockey and family friend Jim Cassidy wore a black armband in the weekend's Caulfield Cup ride as a tribute to David.As treasurer of the Dolphins, David donated a portion of the year's fundraising to charities before organising the club's trip to Bali. That is just the sort of person he was—just so generous. He was well known and liked at the Clovelly Hotel and the Coogee Palace in Sydney. David, always a Wagga Wagga boy at heart, died with his good friend, fellow Dolphins team-mate Clint Thompson. Clint, 29, formerly of Leeton, was holidaying on the island together with his many mates from Coogee Beach Dolphins Rugby League Club on their end-of-year footy trip. He worked 27 days straight to earn himself a 10-day holiday in Bali. Sadly, it lasted just 36 hours. Clint died with five of his team-mates. According to reports, the six boys were all found together, a true sign of what good friends they were. Clint's mother, Sandra Thompson, has taken comfort from the fact that Clint was with his friends, doing what he loved—he was partying, enjoying all that life could offer him before it was tragically taken from him. Clint is the son of Sandra and Robert Thompson of Leeton and he was the second eldest in a family of seven children. According to his mother, Clint acted like the father of his siblings. He had five brothers, Trent, Ryan, Brock, Zaide and Kaleb, and a sister, Farrah. A number of his brothers played with him at the Coogee Beach Dolphins.Former Leeton men Anthony Ellis and Dean Kefford, together with their team-mates, searched for their missing friends only to discover that they had not survived the blast. They both searched all day through the hospital until they found Clint's body. A renowned rugby league player, Clint went through the junior grades of the Leeton Greens before playing senior football for the club. He was a polished backline player on the wing, in the centres or in the fullback position. Clint was a popular personality in Leeton football circles and quickly became a well-known identity as the president and as a player with the Coogee Dolphins. Educated in Leeton, Clint moved to Sydney nine years ago and studied three nights a week for three years to earn his management degree. He then started work as an area and development manager for the Mildara Blass company. Although this loss is so extreme for the gregarious and happy Thompson family, it was so humbling to hear them urging the Australian people not to hate and not to vilify those people who live in Australia as though they were responsible. `Don't lump everyone in the one basket,' Trent said. `Don't treat everybody as though they are murderers and as though we have a vendetta to deal with.' The third young man from the Riverina to lose his life in the Bali bomb blast was Shane Walsh-Till, aged 32. Shane was on holiday with his wife, Melanie, and her sister. Working as teachers in Hong Kong, Shane and Melanie had travelled to Bali for a short holiday before attending an education conference on the island. The group had been at the Sari Club when Melanie and her sister decided to go back to the motel. Minutes after their leaving, the bomb exploded. Shane had still been inside the club. The son of our Coolamon couple Bill and Barbara Till, Shane was well known in the Coolamon, Wagga Wagga and Leeton communities through his sport and his work as a teacher. He played for the Leeton-Whitton Crows Football Club and was assistant coach in 1996 and 1997. Shane was also a keen cricketer and played first grade for a number of our local clubs.Shane taught at St Francis College of Leeton before leaving to travel and work overseas, including a teaching stint in Munich. Shane has been described by those who knew him as a great leader and an adventurous type who loved the outdoors and travelling the world. Shane's home town of Coolamon came to a standstill on Thursday morning with a service to pray for him, his family and the victims of the Bali bombing. Up to 500 people attended the service in that small community, with trucks slowing to a crawl as they passed through the town, while school children were given time off to attend the funeral of this beloved person. Businesses in the town also stopped trading, with employees in attendance at the ceremony. These young men were three gregarious, fun-loving Australians who will be dearly missed not only by their families but by their friends and the communities to which they contributed so much.My heart goes out to all of the families who have lost loved ones. As a mother and a grandmother, there is nothing in this world more precious than my children and my family, and those families of all Australians. I would also like to acknowledge the church service at St John's Church of England at midday on Sunday in Wagga Wagga. Bishop Godfrey Friar delivered the most beautiful service, not once telling Australians of a better life, rather recognising the immense pain at this time that cannot be quelled.I would also like to pay tribute to the team of Australian Federal Police, the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation agents and state and territory police officers in Bali. I also thank Qantas, the Red Cross and the many agencies who have provided much needed assistance. Thanks also to the team of defence and emergency personnel who worked tirelessly to evacuate injured Australians. It is just a reminder that, despite difficulties in times of trouble, the wonderful people of Australia can unite. The efforts of many volunteers who have helped to nurse and support injured victims and their families should not go unnoticed. Many of these volunteers were holiday-makers, while others were from the local Australian community in Bali, who rushed to the scene to assist in any way they could.All that needs to happen now for the Mavroudis, the Thompson and the Till families is for their sons and their brothers to come home. They desperately await the return of their children so they can pay them homage and know that their loved one is home with them, so that they can remember this time and put these things into perspective, and can grieve along with their family and friends in their own communities and home towns.16:48:008341Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—The past two weeks in parliament have been unlike anything I have experienced in this place since I first arrived in 1993. Question time has been surreal. I, along with other members in this place, well remember the weekend of the Port Arthur massacre and the impact it had not only on the people of my state of Tasmania but across Australia and overseas. Unfortunately, there are many still traumatised by the events of that Sunday. On Sunday morning a week ago, many of us were enjoying the peace that is around at that time. Our day unfortunately was shattered with the breaking news of the Bali tragedy. As the day progressed and we made our way from our homes to Canberra for yet another sitting week, many of us were confronted with the realisation that possibly someone in our electorate had been involved in the tragedy. Like the Port Arthur tragedy, news was sketchy at first. As time passed and the first pictures of the tragedy flashed across our TV screens, all of us started to realise the enormity of the tragedy before us.I have never been to Bali but, like most if not all members of this place, I know of so many who have visited Bali year after year. These people have painted a picture of an idyllic island, free from the stresses of the world—the last place one would assume to bear the brunt of a terrorist attack, let alone one of such magnitude and unspeakable horror.Over recent weeks, I have been quite vocal in the media, pursuing an antiwar policy on the issue of Iraq. I have done this from a deeply held conviction that waging war is not the answer to the world's problems. It never has been and it never will be. Most of us in this place can recollect enough of the 20th century wars to remember the human death toll in the tens of millions and the expenditure of trillions of dollars. What changed as a consequence? Empire replaced empire; the dispossessed remained the dispossessed. Albert Camus once stated:All I maintain is that on this earth there are pestilences and there are victims, and it is up to us, as far as possible, not to join forces with the pestilences.This antiwar position I hold has seen hundreds of people, from all walks of life across Australia and from overseas, email and write letters announcing their support. I have also received hate mail from those opposed to my stand. I received an envelope just last week from Melbourne addressed to `Harry Quick MP, Labor friends of Islamic terrorism'.The unfolding tragedy in Bali is beyond our comprehension. Unless you were there, you could not possibly imagine the horror and trauma experienced by those caught up in the blast and its aftermath. I have shed tears as I watched those survivors tell of their experiences. I can only offer my heartfelt sympathy for their loss. My thoughts at this time go out to a family in my electorate, a family I have known for quite a few years. The Hawkins family of Lindisfarne, like so many others across our nation, is trying to come to grips with the realisation that one of their family members is missing, presumed killed—their son and brother Tim, aged 28.As politicians, we are expected to have answers to our nation's problems, to be able to solve most of the inequities that impact upon our constituents. At a time like this, I feel helpless in the face of so much suffering and adversity. Australians at times of adversity rally around to support one another like no other nation on earth. We have seen over the past few days our medical and disaster services spring into action. We have seen the magnificent work accomplished by our armed services, especially our Air Force. The medical institutions in Darwin and subsequently in other capital cities have also responded magnificently to this greatest of challenges. I would like to add my tribute to all the workers involved in the stabilisation of the injured, those involved in the transfer of the injured back to Australia and those currently providing the best of medical services in our hospitals across the nation. Unfortunately, at a time such as this, a time of great challenge, the bureaucratic disaster plans have been shown to be somewhat flawed. Emergency services plans for most eventualities are for those occurring on Australian soil. Now one realises that nothing like the Bali tragedy has ever been contemplated. Some changes must be made to the strategic disaster plans. The need for mobile medical teams with a broad range of specialists based in our capital cities and ready to move at very short notice should be contemplated. A far better national communication network, a disaster radio network—perhaps appropriating ABC News Radio for the duration of the disaster—might be considered. The coordination of services rarely used—such as the need for an extraordinary amount of refrigeration—should be part of a civil emergency plan.I, like others in this place, would like to record my appreciation to the federal government for the many initiatives put in place to enable families to visit Bali and injured relatives in hospitals across the country. I would also like to thank the insurance industry and the various private medical funds for their enlightened response to this tragedy. I would like to express my appreciation to Qantas for its benevolent treatment of families during this tragedy, to Telstra, Optus and Vodafone for their commonsense and humane treatment of phone bills at this time. My sincere thanks to them. There is nothing more soul-destroying for families at this time than to have to argue the point over the fine print on the paperwork in dealing with their family members who were traumatised by the Bali disaster.Like all tragedies that have affected our nation, this one has brought Australians of all walks of life closer together to share in the common grief that has impacted on so many of our communities and many of our friends and acquaintances. I hope and pray that there will be no racist retaliation in Australia because of what has happened and where it has happened. To the people of Bali who have also suffered, and will unfortunately continue to reap the whirlwind of this disaster, my thoughts, prayers and best wishes go out to them. On Thursday in the Great Hall, we will be holding a national memorial service to allow members, senators and families to pay tribute to the memories of those killed and injured. Finally, I would like to place on the public record the fact that I despise those responsible for the tragedy in Bali, and expect that they be rightly punished for their part in this foul deed. The day 12 October 2002 will linger long in the annals of our great country as a day of infamy.16:56:008342Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I rise today to support the Prime Minister's motion relating to the horrendous terrorist bombings in Bali last Saturday night. Words are simply not adequate to describe the grief we feel as a nation. Our hearts go out to everyone, both here and overseas, who has been affected by this senseless tragedy. I am not an orator and I am sure that many others in this debate will be able to put it into words much better than I can, but what I feel today is the same disbelief, numbness and worry that every Australian mother and grandmother has no doubt experienced in response to this tragedy. It is the same sort of horror that we felt on 11 September last year, only this time it has happened so close to home and to so many of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen that we realise with great clarity that we are not isolated from the evil that is terrorism. It is a very real threat to Australia and Australians; it is not something we can back away from and hope that someone else will deal with. It is our duty and responsibility as a government to do what we can to stamp out terrorism wherever it exists in the world. But I do not want to spend the short amount of time I have in this debate today talking about the perpetrators of this murderous act. Just as they displayed the very worst of humanity, this tragedy has also brought out the very best of humanity and the Australian values we all hold so dear.Already some incredible stories of courage, mateship and sacrifice are emerging, of people with little regard for their own safety doing all they can to help others. It is this goodness, positivism and the very best of human nature that we have to hold tight in these difficult times. Rather than allowing the darkness of the magnitude of the horror to engulf us, we have to remember the values that unite us and which are so incredibly displayed at times like this.I want to spend a few moments thanking and paying tribute to the many Australians who have helped others through this tragedy. Firstly, there are the people on the front line, so to speak, who were in Bali when the incident took place and have helped the injured, spoken with families back home, lent support and encouragement, and some who, despite sustaining injuries themselves, have been able to help with the awful task of identifying loved ones who perished. We cannot begin to imagine the pain and horror they have experienced and the emotional scars that they will no doubt carry for many years. When they return to their local communities, we have to ensure that they have the support they need to help them deal with their experiences.I also want to sincerely acknowledge and thank the many hundreds of Australian medical staff who have been working hard to mend the terrible physical injuries suffered by so many, those on holiday in Bali who volunteered their services and those who tended to the injured on planes, in emergency units, at airports, in Darwin and in hospitals around the nation. There are simply too many people to acknowledge. Our thanks in particular go to the RAAF personnel who have been a crucial part of our early response in getting medical supplies into Bali and helping get the injured back to Australia. We have ADF specialists in a range of areas now in Bali helping with the massive task of identification and preservation of the remains of those who were murdered in this attack.Qantas must also be thanked for their incredible response in assisting the evacuation efforts and helping the families of those still missing. Also added to the list should be Telstra, Vodafone and Optus. There are counsellors, consular staff, departmental staff and even our own electorate staff who have been talking with and attempting to assist family and friends who are frantic for news of missing loved ones. I imagine there would be very few Australians who would not be willing to do all they could to help at a time like this. I thank everyone who has played a direct part.There are probably very few families who do not know of someone who has been affected by this tragedy. I want to send my condolences to the many families who lost loved ones, particularly those in my electorate of Forde. I was deeply saddened last Monday night to learn that friends of mine, a wonderful local couple, Marie and David Kent, lost their son David in the attack. I have known Marie for many years, and she is a great contributor to our community and a truly lovely lady. My thoughts are also with Wendy Whelan and her daughters Elisa and Melanie and son-in-law Shane Walsh-Till, Melanie's husband, who were on holidays in Bali. Sadly, Shane is still missing. I know that Wendy and her family will truly appreciate the kind words of Kay Hull, the member for Riverina. Marie, David and Wendy know that my thoughts and deepest sympathy are with them at this very difficult and very traumatic time. I share their pain and I share their deep sense of loss.As I said at the outset, words cannot express all that we truly feel. I just urge all Australians to hold on to that very special feeling that we believe in. We must draw whatever positives we can from this senseless tragedy. In times like this the whole nation truly feels like a small community, and we can do much to support and comfort each other. Most importantly, we must all be united in our resolve to ensure that this does not diminish the unique Australian way of life that we all cherish.I would also like to place on record my heartfelt sympathy to the peoples of Brazil, Britain, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, South America, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United States. Over 120 holiday-makers from these places are dead or missing, and many more are injured. As we hurt, they also hurt. As we grieve, they also grieve. We stand united, suffering the enormous loss of our countrymen and countrywomen.17:01:008344Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The tragedy in Bali is almost beyond belief and Australians are right to feel not only a terrible sadness but a deep anger and a passionate hope that the perpetrators of this mass murder will be caught and brought to justice quickly. On behalf of every constituent of Calare—all of whom were spared any direct loss but nonetheless, like everybody in this country, share that loss—I pass on the deepest sympathy to the victims and the loved ones of victims of this tragedy.In what is a very complicated and difficult situation, some 80 Australian police and other investigators are now working in conjunction with their Indonesian counterparts. It is a painstaking task but they are making increasing inroads into the seemingly insurmountable problem of tracking down those who are responsible for this atrocity. Similarly, forensic teams are working to identify the bodies of victims so they can be brought home and laid to rest. Some, we now realise, will most likely never be identified.There have been many stories from Bali: the sadness of the families who have lost loved ones; the heroism of the rescuers, many injured themselves, showing no hesitation to dive back into the inferno to search for friends and strangers—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 5.04 p.m. to 5.16 p.m.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—As I was saying, there are many stories from Bali: the sadness of the families who have lost loved ones; the heroism of rescuers, many injured themselves, showing no hesitation to dive back into the inferno to search for friends and strangers in need of a hand; the valiant efforts of the volunteers in hospitals in Bali, trained and untrained, to do what they could to keep people alive; and the tireless efforts of the medical teams, both Indonesian and Australian, to save lives. The sadness is shared by Australians, Indonesians and all the 24 nations whose citizens have been victims of this event.The stories of Bali capture the best of the Australian spirit. This spirit is what will enable us to deal with this tragedy without dividing our community. In expressing our grief and anger we must not risk driving a wedge between the non-Muslim and Muslim worlds in using the language of `us and them' or the `civilised world' versus the rest. We are going to need the close cooperation of predominantly Muslim nations like Indonesia and Malaysia in addressing the terrorist threat. There is a real danger in simplistically talking about Muslim terrorists because this slurs the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims who hold no truck with extremists using the Muslim faith to justify violence in the same way as Christians would condemn the extremes of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland or as Hindus would condemn the same in India.I agree with the Prime Minister that the Bali tragedy and Iraq are two separate issues, and I was heartened to hear him confirm this. I firmly believe that no action should be taken in Iraq without UN sanction, and events in Bali certainly have not changed this opinion. What has changed after Bali is a growing realisation by Indonesia that it is going to need the support of all countries in the region, including Australia, to root out the extreme terrorism of al-Qaeda and sympathetic groups. This may well be the good that comes of this tragedy—greater cooperation between Australia and nations to our north that may have become suspicious of our motives in East Timor and our US-UK orientation.It is important, indeed imperative, that any response that is made to these events comes only after we have established responsibility for this act beyond question. We must avoid casting wide aspersions about it. If we become party to action that is not intelligent and directed, we risk losing control and endangering the stability of our regional relationships that have historically been quite tenuous at times. There have already been references both from politicians and in the press, particularly the American press, that this is most likely the work of al-Qaeda and sympathetic groups within Indonesia such as Jemaah Islamiah. The concurrent explosions outside the consulates of the United States and the Philippines may suggest that this indeed is the case.Since the Bali bombings, there have been three subsequent explosions in the Philippines that have claimed more innocent lives. This should make it even more clear to us that this is a problem shared throughout our region and it will require a shared effort to defuse. Calm heads must prevail, both in this place and in the greater community. Indonesia is our closest neighbour in the region and one of the most populous countries in the world. It has seen considerable domestic political and economic turmoil since the end of Suharto's New Order regime in 1998—turmoil that had only been kept in check by the strong arm and long reach of Suharto's military power clique. It is a nation of many millions of people of many different ethnic and religious groups, despite the large Muslim majority. Tension amongst these many disparate groups has been a constant in the history of the Indonesian republic since 1945, and it continues to this date.The attack in Bali could have been, for domestic reasons, designed to destabilise the presidency of Megawati Sukarnoputri as much as it could have been due to resentment of perceived Australian interference in Indonesia's domestic affairs, such as our peacekeeping effort in East Timor since its independence in 1999—most justified as that was. As much again, it could be part of al-Qaeda's jihad against the West. Indeed, it could be an expression of all three. Less likely but still possible is that it could be the product of Hindu-Muslim tension and economic competition that has resulted in violence in the recent past, with transmigration of mainly Muslim Javanese to Bali's tourist based economy to escape the effects of the 1998 economic collapse.The Parliamentary Library has provided a useful brief on possible explanations for the Bali attack and points out that violence, including bombings, have figured recently in Indonesia in attacks against bars and massage parlours in Jakarta and against the Jakarta Stock Exchange, which resulted in 10 deaths. It is possible that power cliques remaining from the New Order regime, both within and outside the military, seek to again consolidate their influence within the republic by undermining the current presidency. Similarly, it could be fundamentalist extremist groups wishing to undermine their president to facilitate their pursuit of an Islamic state.There are many options that could explain why this tragedy has occurred. As no person or group has claimed responsibility for this act, it is all the more important that, first and foremost, we seek and find the answers. This can only be achieved to any effect, as I mentioned before, if we fully engage Indonesia on a cooperative basis—and it seems that every effort is being made to do so. In fact, I have been heartened by the statements of enthusiasm, made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs after returning from Indonesia, for what seems to be a new wave or breeze of cooperation that seems to be blowing, albeit gently, through the corridors of Jakarta.Historically, Australia's diplomatic relationship with Indonesia has been conducted with high sensitivity. For the 30 years of the Suharto regime, this manifested itself in our de jure recognition of its occupation of East Timor for almost 25 years—until this government's initiative—and the convenient ignoring of other human rights abuses across the archipelago. The importance of a good and strong relationship with Indonesia was always afforded priority over these issues. Perhaps now we can follow the strong relationship with a clearer conscience, but we should never allow it to overshadow increasing concerns over West Papua. The price of a cooperative, shared investigation, intelligence and action on terrorism should not be either an assault on our own domestic human rights or a blind eye to oppression in West Papua or elsewhere.Like us, the vast majority of the Indonesian population want nothing to do with extreme fundamentalism and terrorism; they too want peace and stability. We have an opportunity here to engage our closest neighbour in this extremely important effort, standing and acting on our own terms, embracing the region in which we live. This could be the emotional link between our two countries, as Paul Sheehan said in the Sydney Morning Herald, which has been missing from the relationship in the past 50-odd years.The events in Bali deserve a focused effort by our government and its agencies to dissolve the threat of terrorism in our region as a priority over tailing the interests of other nations elsewhere in the world. Our great and powerful friends exhort us to support their efforts internationally against terrorism. We can do this, but we can do it best in our own region on a cooperative basis with our neighbours, especially those nations of majority Muslim faith. Our allies must recognise and support us in this decision, as they have supported Australia's previous efforts to make peace in our neighbourhood. Now is the time to qualify and carefully direct our support for the international effort against terrorism. We find ourselves with an unprecedented opportunity to build stronger, more useful and peaceful relationships within our region. If we do not make this cooperative approach a priority then we risk great damage to those relationships.Beyond that, we and other Western nations must examine our own policies of imposing economic and social values on the non-Christian and on the Third World, for many of those policies when inappropriately and insensitively applied are easily exploitable by fanatics and haters of the West. Such policies find ready converts in the impressionable youth of a Peshawar border camp, in Islamic fundamentalist schools—no different in essence to an IRA camp—in disaffected Saudis angry at American military presence on their soil, in West Bank Palestinians or, indeed, among the economically marginalised of Indonesia.17:26:008347Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—I rise to support the motion moved in the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister on 14 October, immediately after the terrorist attacks in Bali. No doubt our days of mourning will be many and we will swing from deep anger to unbearable sadness. That has certainly already been evident in the community. For a long time we will ask why this would happen to so many young, innocent Australians and people from many parts of the world. The attack was murderous and cowardly and the perpetrators are people who hide themselves from the world. Their attacks, wherever they take place, come without warning and are indiscriminate—killing and maiming innocent men, women and children. Such attacks are to be utterly condemned. The personal heartache and pain this insane act has caused can have no justification whatsoever. In talking about the heartache and pain, one young man, Jason Stokes, the assistant coach of the Kingsley football team, is still not accounted for. His parents and friends are amongst those who face the agonising wait because Jason is not accounted for. My heart aches for his distraught parents and his friends. His parents live in my electorate of Pearce. I have to say, as a mother and a grandmother, that there would be nothing that would concern me more than to be left uncertain about the fate of one of my children, my grandchildren or indeed any member of my family.We can speculate on why these people have perpetrated such atrocious acts on innocent people, but I think at the heart of it these attacks appear to be directed towards anyone who is not a believer of the extreme religious views of the perpetrators. No-one in any part of the world who does not embrace these extreme religious views will be safe from attacks in the future. The perpetrators are not people who are driven by poverty or oppression; they are extremists with a mission to try to create terror in civil societies.Thoughts that Australian people can escape such attacks by remaining silent are seriously misplaced. We can never allow ourselves to be cowed by such acts of brutality. The courage of Australian people in the face of threats and bullying has always been legendary, and I have every confidence that we will stand firm and resolute in the face of this dreadful event. We will work tirelessly to see those responsible for this atrocity brought to justice in a system that undoubtedly will treat them more humanely than the perpetrators treated the innocent victims of their cowardly attacks.By contrast we have seen, as we have heard today and in other speeches over the last few days, that there have been many courageous acts both during and after the bombings. Every day there are new reports of people having rescued their friends from burning buildings and putting their own lives at risk. We have heard stories of the assistance given by medical professionals, the Defence Force, department of foreign affairs staff, emergency services and Red Cross—the list of people assisting has been endless. They have worked in the most difficult circumstances to help the injured. Ordinary people on holiday have inspired us with their generosity and their willingness to volunteer their time to help.Australian people are tolerant and peace loving. It is very heartening to see the nation come together to show such caring for one another, and with such generosity of spirit. To mourn together, to comfort those who have lost family members and friends, and to generously offer financial assistance where it is needed: these, to my way of thinking, are the hallmarks of a civil society. These are the things that Australian people stand up for and these are the qualities that make Australia a place that we all feel very privileged to live in.I will conclude because I feel that to go on would be only to repeat the many wonderful speeches that we have heard and many of the points that have been raised. I extend my sympathy not only to the parents of Jason Stokes who live in the electorate of Pearce but also to everyone—the Balinese, all Australians and the many people from many parts of the world who have lost family members and/or friends. My thoughts and prayers also go out to those who have come back to Australia with serious injuries and are still in hospital. I wish them a speedy recovery, as I am sure we all do.17:33:008348Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I would also like to add my condolences and concerns to the many others that have already been given in this House. Obviously all of us have shared in the devastation over the last few days and on behalf of the people in my electorate, who I think would like to have recorded in this place their condolences, I send sympathy and support to the family and friends who have lost loved ones in this tragedy. We are now a little further down the track, a few more days have passed since this terrible act, but the trauma and tragedy of the event is going to stay with the survivors for the rest of their lives. We know that many of these survivors will be emotionally and physically scarred from this event and haunted by it for many years to come. My thoughts certainly go to those survivors and particularly to the families and friends who are still waiting for news about those who are unaccounted for. As the days go by more people are sure of the fate of their loved ones, but still do not have any confirmation that that has been the case. This is a terrible time for those families as well. Not knowing the fate of their loved ones and waiting for the news can be almost the most unbearable part of this process for family and friends. My heart goes out to those people waiting for news and confirmation and some sort of finality.We have the immediate grief of the tragedy, but much of this grief is going to be felt for many years. Obviously life will never be the same for the family and friends who have lost their loved ones in these bombings. Even for those of us not directly touched by family or friends having been involved, we too have felt the impact and their pain. I must say that reading the paper and watching TV, although I am not prone to crying in movies and those sorts of things, I felt that my heart was in my throat. I was very tearful at the scale of the human tragedy that we were talking about and the nearness of it to all of us. That has affected all of us, from the oldest and most experienced to the newest members of this House, in a way that we would never have expected. That comes with the acute awareness that it could easily have been any one of us, our family or our friends, on a holiday escape.I would like to say that, unlike some of my colleagues from Western Australia who I know have had whole football teams and communities drastically affected by this sad event, we too in my electorate have had one person who was not identified initially and was recently added to the list of missing persons. My electorate would like to have recorded in this House our sympathy and concern for Ms Sylvia Dalais, 55, who is feared to have become one of the latest victims in the terrorist strike. As I say, her name was not originally on the list and we have not yet been able to contact family members who no longer live in my electorate. Certainly from the newspaper reports, her son was very aware that the Sari nightclub was a place that his mother was very fond of attending, enjoying dancing and living life, and the things that so many others who were caught up in this enjoyed. Again, on behalf of the electorate, we would like to record our sympathy and condolences for Ms Dalais and her family at this very difficult time.Many of us are asking as well, `How are we going to ever regain our confidence and trust in the carefree travel that so many people were involved in when they were in Bali?' This came home to us particularly clearly because there were so many young people involved enjoying themselves at the Sari Club in Bali, experiencing a new culture, dancing, socialising and generally living it up—all of the things that for a long time we have encouraged our young people to do. Overseas travel for young Australians has been almost a rite of passage and, for many of our young Australians, Bali has been the favoured destination for them testing the water, if you like, being the first trip that they might make overseas to see what international travel is like. For many, it has been the first step to opening our eyes and minds to all types of new experiences. By attacking this destination, the perpetrators of this awful act of murder have really purposely struck at the core of our sense of freedom and fun. The intention is clearly to make us fearful of travel, of enjoying ourselves and of challenging ourselves by moving beyond our day-to-day comfort zones to try something new. The intention, as many others have said before me, was for us to be worried and afraid. In recent days since the bombings, it is hard to feel that they are not going to get their way. This event has scared a great many people. I met with a number of mental health experts who work particularly with young people, who have warned that this tragedy in Bali may have even more impact on Australian teenagers and young people than, for example, the attack on the World Trade Centre because Bali was a place where young people, and particularly young Australians, gathered to relax and enjoy life.Obviously the images alone of the events that we have seen can have an enormous impact on the mental health and wellbeing of many of our children and young people. The Mental Health Council of Australia has warned that children, in particular, are very vulnerable to these graphic images and must be protected from that trauma. We must protect ourselves from the trauma as best we can, not because we want to ignore what has happened but because we need to ensure that everyone can see a way beyond this and have some reason to trust in our future. I believe it is a time when we must all take care to remind each other of the good things in life, of the advantages of living in a country like ours and of the opportunities that we will have in the future for much more fun, care and love with other friends and families.We must not let terrorists have their way by turning us into people who fear to enjoy life, to travel, to be adventurers. I know that it is hard in the midst of this tragedy and suffering—and there is still much that is unknown for many people—to imagine what it will be like to go beyond this as a nation, but we must. Particularly, I would like to urge that we must not lose sight of this for our young people. That generation has largely been blissfully free of war experience. They have grown up excited, feeling that the world is their oyster, that there are challenges before them and that they will not be hindered by the sorts of things that generations before them went through during the two world wars. So we want our young people to continue to set off to discover their own place in the world and to see other parts of the world. We want our footy teams to have a chance to relax after a demanding season. We want newlyweds to feel comfortable to walk hand in hand along the beach. I think if we lose the chance of doing that, whether it is in Bali or elsewhere, then we will be giving the perpetrators of this atrocity the satisfaction that they have done much more than kill and injure many hundreds of people—they will have stolen our freedom to enjoy life.In the short time that is left, I want to also acknowledge that there are many people who live in my electorate who have had the misfortune of facing the tragedies of war, conflict and terrorism in their mother countries before they came to Australia. They came here to find peace and make a new life, and many of them fight to overcome the demons in their memories. I hope that this does not reawaken those horrors for them and, in fact, that we may look to them for assistance and the lessons in how to overcome past fears and horrors and to get on and make a new and positive life. I hope that, in the same way that the new immigrants have been able to adopt our carefree and open society, peace and security will also eventually be able to be found for those people directly affected by this terrible act.I would like to finish by reminding people, as others have as well, that we should remember that the place where this atrocity occurred was also a place of work for many Balinese people who were also killed. I think that in this House we all agree that no-one should have to put their life at risk by turning up to work. For the Balinese, this workplace was set up to provide pleasure and enjoyment, primarily for Australians, and for working in such a place many locals have paid a very high price. Our sympathies should go to those local people who were killed and injured and to their families as well.I also, along with others, want to record my thanks to the doctors, nurses, volunteers and those other family members and friends faced with the grim task of identifying bodies and sorting through the rubble, both human and other, to try and provide certainty to family members and friends. These too are experiences that no-one ever could expect or want to be part of, but many people have unquestioningly sprung to immediate action to help others in need, and I think they deserve our heartfelt thanks and, indeed, support for the trauma that they too have suffered. I trust that every effort will be made to find the perpetrators of this vile crime and bring them to justice, and I think that it has brought home to us that we cannot ignore the fact that we have a role to play at an international level in trying to work for these positive solutions. Of course we need to develop strategies that combat the environment where extremism thrives. These environments are those of systemic poverty, injustice, racial intolerance and persecution based on race, religion or political views. As a country, we must now take up the challenge and take our place in the international community to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.17:44:008350Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—I mourn the innocent victims of the terrorist bombings in Bali on Saturday, 12 October 2002 and condemn the perpetrators of that attack. I wish to support the Prime Minister's motion and the words of those who have spoken before me and spoken very well, as my predecessor has. I would like to extend my deep sympathy to those Australians who have been touched by this dreadful event: to the families and friends of those who were killed in the bombing who have lost loved ones in this most deplorable and indiscriminate way; to those who have suffered injury and psychological trauma as a result of the bombings, and their families and friends who have waited through extreme anxiety to see whether they were alive or not; and to the Australian people who have felt the suffering of their fellow citizens. We can only inadequately imagine the anguish of those who are still waiting and hoping for any news of their family and friends, or for the forensic identification process to be completed so that they can reclaim and bury the bodies.They all should know that throughout this nation and in this chamber there is a deep sympathy and sadness for their loss and a great anger at those who caused it. The immense pain of and the support for the grief stricken were manifest on Sunday, our national day of mourning. This multicultural country came together to commemorate our personal and national losses and the losses of the international community, and we did so in a myriad ways and places—on football fields and beaches, in gardens and churches and in mosques. I hope that those who have been so terribly devastated by the bombings in Bali derive some comfort and strength from this very visible demonstration of unity and sympathy. The grief and trauma will not be diminished for some time, but neither will the sympathy and community support. All of us, as parliamentarians, feel a great sadness about the harm visited upon so many people by the atrocity in Bali, and I think we feel this most keenly where people from our own constituency have been killed or are missing. Sadly, a member of the Kooyong community, Bronwyn Cartwright, is still missing, and my particular sympathies go to her family and friends.Our strongest empathy is always with the people in our own community and in our own nation—those who were affected by such dreadful events—and that is natural. But we also feel great sadness for the citizens of other nations who were killed or injured in these outrageous attacks—citizens of New Zealand, Germany, Britain, France, Belgium, the United States and many others. Our heartfelt sympathy goes to them too and to their families and friends. We also feel immense sorrow for the people of Indonesia and, in particular, for the many people of Bali who were killed or injured and for their families and friends. The suffering in the local community where this atrocity took place will linger in many ways for years to come. But out of the carnage of Bali have also come acts of memorable heroism, bravery and selflessness. We have heard remarkable tales of people risking their own lives to try to save the lives of others who were caught in the bombing. They are to be admired and commended. As the rescue and recovery effort has gone on, we have also seen great heroism in people who would probably say that they were just doing their job. It is important to recognise these people as well—to recognise the medical workers across Australia who have continued to treat shocking injuries under extraordinary circumstances; the many counsellors who are now trying to assist those traumatised by these events; and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officers, the Australian Defence Force, and the police and security services—all of whom have played an important part in managing the crisis situation we have witnessed over the past week or so. Australian businesses and individuals also deserve appreciation for the efforts they have already made to do what they can to help—from making special travel arrangements and concessions to travel conditions to the rush to donate blood. Australia has been on a heightened state of alert since September 11 last year, but it still does come as an enormous shock when a terrorist attack of this scale and character occurs. The fact that Australians number so significantly amongst the casualties, together with the happy associations and the memories that so many Australians have of Bali, does sharply bring the reality of terrorist threats another step closer. But, as I have said in this place before, terrorism's potential to inflict mass casualties has long been apparent, and democratic leaders have consistently emphasised the potential for major casualties from terrorist action. The targeting of the World Trade Centre last year was a massive attack on a purely civilian target. But the United States, and indeed the World Trade Centre itself, had been the targets of terrorists before.The reality now is that our part of the world has increasingly emerged as a terrorist target, and it is the responsibility of each nation to meet the threat of terrorism. This is not just a responsibility to its own citizens. It is a responsibility which each nation has to its neighbours and to all nations in the region. It is a responsibility which all countries have to the peoples of all nations that make up the civilised international community. There have been serious questions raised about Indonesia's preparedness and capacity to confront the terrorist challenge in the region. I think it is encouraging to read the comments of Indonesian officials and to witness their actions in the past week and the capacity of their government to take firm action to combat terrorism, increase security and confront terrorist threats in the region and in their area.The members of the Australian parliament on all sides, regardless of their political commitments, are outraged at the barbaric terrorist attacks that took place in Bali 10 days ago. The members of the Australian community, regardless of race and religion, condemn those who employ terror and indiscriminate violence against innocent people. This parliament and our country will do everything in our power to bring to justice those who are responsible for this outrage, and we expect our friends and allies to contribute to this. We must respond to this attack in a measured, proportionate and effective way to seek to prevent this sort of tragedy being inflicted again.17:51:008352Vamvakinou, Maria, MPMs VAMVAKINOU00AMTCalwellALP00—I first heard the news of the Bali bombing as our household was waking up to its usual Sunday morning routine. It was a sunny and normal—and I say `normal' in inverted commas—morning in Melbourne and somehow the clamour and excitement in our house could not absorb the initial horror of the news. It has been 10 days since it occurred and it still is difficult to comprehend not only the unspeakable grief but also the realisation of what this means for us now and its potential consequences.Like every Australian, my thoughts have been with the families of the people whose lives were so brutally ended. As a parent, I feel great sympathy and anguish for those other parents who have lost their children. I, like everyone else, adore my kids—as we all do—and there is no greater fear for any parent than the fear that something will happen to their children. This fear has been so poignantly expressed time and time again during these last few days, but its vulnerability resonates most in the words of one mother who, after clasping her son in her arms, said, `I'll never let him go away again.'I have watched the television screen on a daily basis feeling sadness for all those parents, relatives and friends who have spent the last week at airports around the country waiting for their loved ones to arrive. We feel even greater sadness now for those who must wait for the repatriation of the remains of their loved ones. We have heard so many of them tell their story that we now feel we know them personally. Their stories are painful, and I have been particularly inspired by the young mother who was driven to safety by the image of her seven-year-old son and the thought that she could not leave him without a mother. Craig Salvatori's story and his agony have also touched me profoundly, having to tell his little girls that their mummy has gone to heaven and having to endure the frustration in his attempt to identify his wife's body. That is how all of us in our own way relate personally to our fellow Australians. It could have been any one of us, it could be any one of us—and we ask ourselves, `Why?'Sadly, 12 October 2002 will be another one of those defining moments for Australia—a day when a tragedy beyond our comprehension took place. We were not at war and this was not a natural disaster. The scene was a regular Saturday night in a local nightclub at a popular holiday destination. The victims were young people on holiday, just having a good time. They hurt no-one; they provoked no-one. They were not players in world affairs. They were just part of a happy crowd, minding their own business—and within seconds they were blown away. There was no warning, no reason; they were just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In a matter of seconds, their lives and their families' lives were altered forever.As a nation, we are left to face the harsh reality that we are vulnerable. But the way Australians have come together to collectively share the grief is commendable. It makes me proud to be an Australian, and I know that this will make us stronger. I want to stop short of saying, however, that our days of innocence are over. To believe or accept that would severely restrict the freedoms with which we are lucky enough to live our lives in this country. Despite the tragedy of what happened last weekend in Bali, I know that none of us would want to surrender those freedoms, especially our freedom of movement.We must not be spooked by the bastardry and hatred for other people which drives those who we have now come to know as terrorists and leads to callous killings. Their actions are indiscriminate and spare no-one. They can be vanquished, and I am certain that we have the spirit and the strength to act with reason and wisdom despite our hurt and anger. To the families who have lost their loved ones, all I can say is that your grief is felt by all and that we are united in our efforts to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice.Last Sunday, the day after the bombings, I went to the peace rally in the city of Melbourne. I was moved by the many young people who were there. However, I kept thinking of the tragedy in Bali; so were the people beside me in the street; so was everyone I spoke to or walked with—all horrified, all devastated. I marched under the banner of the Islamic Council of Victoria. Many of the people there were my constituents. They too felt devastation. They denounced the bombing in the same way as the rest of us, but they also expressed their own fears and concerns. Since September 11 they too have felt vulnerable, but more so than the rest of us. They feel vulnerable in their own backyards, in their streets and in their neighbourhoods. Their children feel vulnerable at school. Many of them felt sick to the stomach in anticipation of a backlash, which has already occurred in two separate incidences in both Melbourne and Sydney. They too are Australians and in this difficult time they also feel under siege. But they also feel that their loyalty to Australia is constantly challenged. Their sentiments are—and I am sure they want me to convey this to the parliament—that not in the name of Islam does anyone have the right to perpetrate such murder against innocent people.In conclusion, I just wanted to say that despite what we feel at the moment—our anger at this senseless loss of life—we must also remain measured, because it is understandable that the enormity of our emotions in the short term will demand revenge. That is a human reaction but it is important that we remain measured. It is comforting to know that others are also calling for reason. We want answers but I am also heartened by the many people who do not seek violence as a means of revenge. This is what makes me proud to be an Australian. I love our decency, our mateship and our courage and I am proud of the way we have come together as a nation to share our grief.Many opinion makers, however, have already sought to pass judgment by accusing those who in recent times have expressed a different view from their own as being cowards, and they talk of appeasers. Already, vilification of the so-called left wing has been in progress. Already many are seeking to use this incident to shore up their cause for Australian involvement in a war against Iraq and to say, `I told you so,' and to warn that unless we participate in this war we will never be safe again. That may be the case but that may also not be the case. The bombing of the Sari nightclub and the subsequent deaths of innocent people should not be a reason for us to surrender our freedom of movement. Equally, it should not be used as a reason for some to challenge our freedom of speech.Our nation is built on strong democratic principles and the rule of law. We cherish our right to our opinion and we expect that opinion to be considered on an equal basis to the opinions of others which may be different. Australians have always spoken their mind, and for those 50,000 people in Melbourne on Sunday who marched against war their opinions should be accorded the same respect as the opinions of those who support war. Those people should not be accused of being unpatriotic or made to feel that they cannot express their views in case they are seen to be unsympathetic. This is not a time for one opinion to seek vantage over another.17:58:008354Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I would like to briefly add my comments to this motion of grief. I have nothing new to say that has not already been said but, as a member of this parliament and as a member of a nation that is still shocked and grieving and angry, I want to join in recording my empathy with my fellow countrymen.In doing so, I want to say three things. Firstly, I want to express my genuine sympathy to all who are suffering, to those who are grieving the loss of loved ones—family, lovers, friends and mates of the perhaps 180 dead. Possibly up to 92 Australians died, mostly young people, along with people from 20 countries around the world, including from Bali and other parts of Indonesia. All were innocent victims of this callous and evil act. Secondly, I want to extend my sympathy to those battling the agony of uncertainty—those whose loved ones are still among the 62 or so still missing, fearing the worst yet hoping beyond hope that their worst fears may not be realised. Thirdly, I want to assure those, perhaps over a hundred people, who are suffering horrific unimaginable injuries that our thoughts are also with them at this terrible time of suffering.In addition, I would like to join others around Australia and around the world in utterly condemning this outrageous act of brutality and barbarism. It is unfathomable that people could act in such a despicable, inhuman way to so callously inflict such suffering on innocent people. It defies belief that anyone could wilfully visit such evil on others. No ideology, no cause, no level of extremism can come close to justifying such an act of inhumanity.Finally, I want to declare my support for the determination of the Australian government and other decent peace-loving governments around the world in their stand against terror and in their commitment to bring to justice the perpetrators of this foul deed. There are some who would naively argue against taking such a stand. They erroneously argue that refusing to do so would somehow shield us from any future attack. The fact is that the current terrorist scourge born out of anti-Western, antidemocratic extremism has absolutely no respect for persons and we would remain a target, regardless of how we respond. The only hope is for those who embrace freedom to stand strongly together against terrorism, to root out those responsible and to bring them to justice. Words are hopelessly inadequate at a time like this. They cannot possibly relieve the pain of those who are grieving. Yet, like all Australians, we want them to know that we stand with them at this terrible time of loss.10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—I call the member for Burke and thank him.18:02:008355O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr BRENDAN O'CONNOR00AN3BurkeALP00—It has already been said by many speakers who have spoken on this motion how dreadful the events of 10 days ago were for the country at large. Clearly, the tragedy is resonating throughout the country. I, as the member for Burke, on Sunday happened to be involved in two services. The first was in Bacchus Marsh, where I presided over an ecumenical service which involved the Mayor of Moorabool, Mr Allan Comrie; the member for Melton, Mr Don Nardella; pastors of many denominations; and the Mayor of Melton, Sophie Ramsay. Most importantly, the service was filled with hundreds of locals from Bacchus Marsh, all there to lay a single flower to commemorate those most affected by this dreadful tragedy. The sympathy was palpable. Most of the speeches were sombre and short, and they focused upon the victims.The national day of mourning that was recommended by the Leader of the Opposition and welcomed formally by the Prime Minister allowed communities across Australia—not just in the capital cities but in communities beyond—to commemorate the victims and the dead, and to reflect upon the awful suffering endured by the families. As was said earlier by the member for Gellibrand, it was an opportunity to reflect upon the aching pain that must be experienced now by the loved ones and families of those missing—those victims, it would appear, whose fate has yet to be confirmed.It is very hard, whether it be at a service or elsewhere, or even on my feet now in the parliament, to really find the right words to comfort people at the local level or, indeed, comfort people of the nation, but one of our functions is to take that role. The other service I was involved in was again an ecumenical service at a Baptist church in Sunbury, which also involved other local representatives, including the member for Gisborne, Joanne Duncan, and the mayor of the council. The congregation came from all different denominations. It was a great testimony to the fact that, when such national crises as these occur, people's differences seem to fall away and we are left with what we hold in common. What we hold in common is not just a love for this country, its institutions and its capacity to disagree democratically, but also a strong bond which has been reflected since this awful day.It is also fair to note, now 10 days on, that as the days continue there is a need at some point for us to consider and, can I say, to analyse what causes these things. It will be important for this parliament to properly contemplate the causes of these dreadful acts. We normally refer to them as senseless acts and acts with no reason, but we must find reason. They can never be excused; they can never be rationalised as being acceptable. They are barbaric acts. But we must find causes so we can prevent future acts like this. I therefore agree with the member for Calwell, when she said that we must not allow acts like this to cause this country to turn in on itself. It is a difficult balance. On the one hand, we want to make sure we find the perpetrators of such events. We want to bring them to justice, but we also want to protect the things the terrorists want to destroy, other than the victims that are the most clearly obvious focus of their hatred. They also want us to attack our institutions, to attack our civil liberties and to attack our freedoms. It would be paradoxical if we found ourselves attacking, or allowing terrorists to have us undermine, our own democratic principles in this way. That is something for this parliament and the community at large to consider in future. I do think it is important that we reflect upon those things. But today, for me, is a time, as it was on Sunday, to consider fully the effects on the victims. We can only guess how hard it would be.There are just two instances in my electorate. I am glad to say that there is no confirmation of anybody being a victim—and, by definition, I mean any deceased or injured person or any person that I have been made aware of that is related to any victim. However, many members of the local football club in Lancefield were in Bali and were 400 metres from the blast. They were witness to the aftermath of those explosions and were stranded in Bali. Their families did not know their fate until some time after. Therefore, for them and their families, what an amazing and overwhelming sense of relief it must have been to realise that they were able to avoid this tragedy in a direct sense.I hope they were not witness to the aftermath in a direct sense, because I think if we are going to define `victim' here then we have to define `victim' to include not only those who were physically injured as result of the explosions but also those who may be affected psychologically as witnesses to either the event itself or the consequences of the event. I have not yet been able to speak to the Lancefield Football Club members who were in Bali, but I hope I will do so soon. My office has certainly spoken to the club itself.The other local instance I wanted to raise was that I spoke to a mother whose daughter was in the Sari Club at the time of the explosions, and she expressed to me her overwhelming relief that there, but for the grace of God, goes her daughter, in effect. Her daughter was in the club and managed to get out without physical injury. However, who knows the extent to which she will suffer as a result of this tragedy.In conclusion, it was very important that on Sunday we commemorated the dead, the injured and the families. I think this parliament will have to consider in more analytical terms in the future how we are to avoid conflicts such as this and whether there are ways in which we can mitigate the potential of these things happening in the region and, indeed, around the world because, until we find the root cause of terrorism, we will not feel fully safe and we will not have done our job as leaders of the community.18:12:008356Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I am honoured to be able to speak to this motion in relation to the terrible attacks in Bali. Indeed, on the national day of mourning I was in my own church in Murwillumbah and had to speak to the congregation, like many members of parliament and many others around the country. I was certainly filled with mixed emotions. It was in this particular church where I got married, yet here we were in this church on such a sad day for the people of our valley and our nation, mourning the loss of so many young Australians who lost their lives through their own innocence and through a callous, brutal act by a terrorist organisation. The lives of over 180 individuals from many different nationalities around the world were cut short—the vast majority of those being Australian citizens.My heart goes out to all the parents and to all the children of those who were killed, to their loved ones, to their friends, to their relations and to the communities where so many young Australians are now not coming back from their holidays. Two cases in particular have affected my local area. Barry Wallace and his daughter, Julie—who I think postponed her trip to go to Bali due to September 11 last year—went to Bali for relaxation and enjoyment. Her life was cut short and her body is still to be identified. The sheer pain and anguish of Barry and his family and his ex-wife and others who new Julie must be awful at the moment.Another family close to home are also going through that pain and anguish, and that is the Hardy family of Tweed Heads. Billy Hardy is still missing. Billy went to Bali with a group of football players from the Southport Sharks and he has not returned home. His family and all those associated with Billy are grieving terribly at the moment for the loss of life and the inability at the moment to identify their loved ones. This story is being replayed in many parts of Australia. Our belief in freedom and in the freedom of our nation was suddenly shattered on the night of 12 October in the Sari nightclub. Indeed, the fight for freedom is the constant fight that all Western countries have, particularly Australia, as we join forces with other nations in the fight against terrorism. The fight against terrorism is a fight for freedom of the values that we respect and honour, and we must never bow down to the pressure of these evil, callous individuals or organisations who are deliberately going out of their way to attack innocent civilian people in a campaign of terror.I noticed that, in the speeches that were made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party in the House of Representatives on the Monday after this tragic incident, the constant theme was that we must continue to be ever vigilant— like the RSL motto: the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Many Australian citizens have paid an enormous price because of these terrorist organisations. Many of the citizens of my electorate and many citizens of Australia have great concerns about the potential dissemination of these terrorist groups within the country of our nearest neighbour—Indonesia. As a nation, we need to maintain and strengthen our dialogue with the Indonesian leadership and give them the support to pursue those who are responsible for this dastardly deed. We need to offer support to our Australian institutions, right through to our ADF, to ensure that the fabric of Indonesia is preserved in the sense that those authorities pursue these people and there is not seen to be a complacency towards pursuing any terrorist organisation within this country.The issues are far greater than the tragedy that occurred on 12 October. It is a wider campaign, and Australia must continue to take up the cudgels in the fight against terrorism and those countries that support terrorism. To this end, I think all Australians would recognise that there is still an urgent need to pursue those nations and those individuals who are harbouring terrorists, particularly those who may have the potential to use weapons of mass destruction. One can only imagine what would happen if these individuals, with their total disregard for human rights, were able to obtain biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. They would use these weapons with devastating impact—just as devastating as the impact experienced in our own nation and other nations by the events in Bali. Families have been shattered by the events of 12 October and their lives will forever be changed. My deepest sympathies go to those families and victims. It is entirely appropriate that we as a national parliament honour them as much as we can this Thursday when some of the relatives come to the nation's capital and to our parliament. Individuals and communities, particularly all the emergency service workers and hospital staff, have been working around the clock to care and cater for those who were terribly injured in the bomb blasts. We hope that they make a full recovery, although they will always have to endure the scars—as previous speakers have mentioned. Even those people who had minimal injuries will experience psychological hurt and the hurt to their hearts will stay with them forever.As I mentioned before, the fight against terrorism must be unrelenting. We must be for ever vigilant, just as the RSL motto states. With absolutely steely determination and dedication, we must continue to pursue the evil people who perpetrated this deed and bring them to justice. More importantly, we must be ever vigilant in securing our internal security. We hope this does not spread to us, but no-one knows that. Also, we must join the rest of the global community, particularly those that share our values—our allies. We must continue to pursue not just those held responsible for the Bali disaster but any of the organisations that deliberately set out to use terrorism as a means to an end in a world where there is far more fundamentalism. Australia has a huge role to play, but our role as a nation at the moment must be to put as much love, warmth and comfort as possible around the families that are suffering terribly at the moment. I join all the other members of the parliament in this condolence motion at a very sad time in Australia's history. 18:21:008358Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—For Australia, the bombing attacks in Bali of 12 October 2002 are our own version of September 11—not an attack on home soil but no less a strike at the heart of our nation. The horrific Bali bombings have devastated us all. They were a brutal and callous act of murder that will forever change the way Australians think about themselves and our own vulnerability. There are many similarities and some important differences between the events in New York and Bali. The scale of the damage and the number of deaths in that reprehensible attack on the symbols of American power and economy and upon the American people themselves shocked the world. The scars left by these acts are enduring and will continue to haunt and disturb us for the rest of our lives. The bombings in Bali were on a smaller scale but proportionately no less significant or horrific. Unlike the attacks in New York and Washington, this atrocity was committed against a target that did not symbolise power or wealth. This was an attack against innocence and freedom. This criminal and barbaric act will leave a lingering pain and an emptiness of the spirit that we must endure. The sight of dead bodies and of those survivors that are left behind— mutilated, burnt so badly, frightened and without their friends and families—has affected us deeply. Most terrifying of all is that it could have so easily been any one of us. Our greatest fear is that we are vulnerable, and that may always be the case in a world where violence and death are also a part of life. Unlike times of war, when the boundaries are clearer, finding ways in which a nation copes with the grief of such great loss is difficult. For the terrorist acts of 12 October, it is not so clear. There were no demands, no hostages taken, no specific country responsible and no cause announced. There was no way to prevent the bombings without specific prior knowledge of the event. It was, by any definition, completely senseless. This is what frightens us and makes us angry—the vulnerability and the knowledge that we are powerless to prevent something and inadequate in the aftermath. We must hope that our great country has been awakened to our vulnerability, that the efforts and the resources we devote to our security may prevent any future attack. The world's people have rallied around the tragedy that took place in Bali, with the UN collectively denouncing the terrorist acts and those responsible. The events in Bali have truly sickened the world.No part of Australia has been left untouched by tragedy or pain. The electorate of Oxley and the regions of Ipswich and Brisbane are no different. There are families who have lost loved ones or know someone who has. To them, and to all those affected by this criminal act, I offer my most sincere condolences. The pain and loss they are suffering cannot be described easily, nor will these pass quickly. I offer the services of my office to families that need assistance or information in relation to the Bali bombings. I am also keeping a book of condolence in my office for members of the public to express their thoughts and feelings to the families and friends of the victims. We know that over 30 Australians are confirmed dead. Tragically, we also know that this figure will rise. There continue to be up to 100 Australians whose whereabouts remain unknown, and the hope for their safe return is fading.Ordinary families and communities have been touched irreversibly by this tragedy. Football clubs have lost friends and team-mates; families have lost mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. Australia has lost its young innocent people and its sense of invincibility and remoteness from international terrorism. There will be a concerted effort by Australian authorities to seek out and bring to justice those that are responsible for these heinous crimes. Australia needs to direct its efforts clearly to the war on terrorism, wherever that may be—and it is now much closer to home. Australia has already moved to work with the Indonesian authorities to assist with investigations. The horrendous task of identifying the bodies of victims still in Bali is now the big challenge and must be carried out with dignity and purpose to ensure positive identification. The families have suffered enough and need certainty to give their loved ones a proper resting place at home. I would also ask the government and community to consider the plight of the innocent young Balinese people that were killed and burnt in the attacks. While Australians will get the best possible medical treatment available at home, the Balinese in Indonesia will have very little medical support and will suffer even further. The people who perpetrated this crime have no morals, no ethics, no religion and no humanity. No religion condones their actions. They have no faith and no cause. They are the lowest form of human life and cannot be forgiven. The Australians murdered were young and innocent fun-loving people, as were the victims from other nations. They were white and black, young and old, Christian, Jew and Muslim. They were from all walks of life, and none of them deserved to die.This attack was on Australia, the world and Indonesia. Bali is now permanently scarred. Indonesians not only mourn for their loved ones but also now face the prospect of a shattered economy in a fragile and poor part of the world. Indonesia and Australia have been attacked spiritually and economically. The terrorists had total disregard for who would die and in fact aimed their hatred at young innocent people on a busy night in a popular nightclub. The terrorists calculated in order to cause maximum damage to life and cause the most pain. Every nation in the world must condemn these attacks and killings and work together to fight against this evil—an evil that is now part of the face of the 21st century and one that must be eradicated.Some believe that we have brought this on ourselves. This interpretation implies that going to work, going on a holiday or spending time with friends and family is reason enough to be killed or maimed by fanatics. There is no reason and can never be any justification for acts of terrorism and murder. Those who express this view are completely and utterly wrong; they are devoid of compassion and understanding and I reject their view. Terrorists do not stop if you do not act, they do not stop because you remain silent and they do not stop if you close your eyes to what is happening around us. For them it is about hate. The people that did this, those responsible, are filled with hate—hate for humanity. They are a gutless, cowardly group of people hiding behind masks and slogans—murderers that kill very deliberately but quite indiscriminatingly. Terrorists thrive in environments where fear and oppression exist and care not for freedom and tolerance or mutual respect. They will pervert and exploit cultural differences and fan the flames of hatred. They want free people to crawl on their belly, to give up their freedom and way of life. They want us to simply give up. They want us to hate as they do—blindly, fanatically and ruthlessly. This we cannot accept. We must not give in or give up. Australians must never bow down to these people. We must always fight hard to protect who we are and our way of life; we will not let them win. We must also ensure that we target only the people responsible. It would be easy to just brand one country, one group or one religion, but it is not that simple. This is not the work of a religion or a country but the work of madmen and criminals. We must ensure that Australia takes a leading role in the fight against terror in our region. We must work with Indonesia to help them also fight terrorism. And we need the help of other countries within our region; this is not something that can be done by any one country. I feel terrible about what has happened—sick to my stomach. I can only imagine the pain and horror of families that have lost someone. Again I offer my condolences and pray for a safer world.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:008360Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—It is with much sadness that I rise in parliament to speak on the Prime Minister's motion on the barbaric and senseless bombings that took place in Bali, Indonesia, on Saturday, 12 October 2002. On behalf of myself, my wife, Huyen, and our families, I extend our deepest condolences, prayers and thoughts to the families of all those who have been victims of this shocking act of evil. As the federal member for Ryan, I know I speak on behalf of all the people of Ryan in extending their prayers and profound sympathies to all Australians who have lost loved ones through this heinous act. To all those Australians who are suffering terrible injuries, who are physically and emotionally scarred, and to those Australians who are now in unimaginable pain, we pray that your recovery is speedy and full. Rest assured that the thoughts of your fellow Australians are with you in their hearts.As the federal member for Ryan, I also know that the people of my electorate would want me to express on their behalf their deep sorrow and sadness for the Balinese families who also lost loved ones. The bombing that took place not only cut down Australians in the fullness of their lives but it also deprived Bali and Indonesia of young men and women who also were going about their lives either at work or at play. I think it is important that the Australian people in their own national grief and prayers also remember the many local Balinese that lost their lives as a result of the terror that was inflicted on the Sari nightclub on 12 October.The unjustified bombings of the Sari nightclub can only be described as a shocking act of evil, a truly barbaric act of mass murder committed against innocent people. Because of its audacity, its callousness and its impact, it was an act that has numbed the people of Australia to their core. Indeed, it was an act that for its place and time was such that it has shocked our friends around the world and reverberated in the corridors of power, from Downing Street to the White House. At times like this, it is important for the Australian people to know that countries with whom we share similar values and beliefs, countries whom we can count as friends within the international community, such as Britain, Canada and the United States, have conveyed their deepest condolences. Other countries have also sent messages to our Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House of Representatives condemning the act of terror that was committed in Bali.Since news of the bombing filtered home, Australians have come together in a spirit that typifies the greatness of a wonderful country. That spirit can be seen in how so many people pulled together in the immediate aftermath of the explosion and worked in the most awful chaos and danger to pull people out of rubble, to carry the wounded and the limbless from the burnt remains of what was once a place of colour, music and laughter. Then we saw the spirit of Australia on full display with the professionalism of members of the Royal Australian Air Force as they went about their task of evacuating Australians from Bali to hospitals at home in Darwin and Perth. We witnessed the spirit of Australia through the dedication of everyday Australians: paramedics, emergency staff, hundreds of volunteers, including many doctors and nurses who so generously gave up their time to help their fellow Australians. Indeed, that is what makes our country so very special, so very unlike other countries: everyday Australians who, in a defining moment such as a civilian emergency, a crisis or a tragedy, show their courage and selflessness for their fellow Australians. The magnificent performance of all these Australians in Bali and at home deserves the full tribute of this parliament and the people of Australia.Of course on Sunday, 20 October, our declared day of national mourning, the collective spirit of this great country was there for the world to see. From coast to coast and in the heart of our nation, the outback, the people of Australia paused to remember the tragedy of the Bali bombings and in their own and different ways showed their affections and support. Indeed, as the Prime Minister declared in his message to the Australian people:As much as we have been shocked and bewildered at what has occurred, Australians have also been stirred by a spirit of mateship to help the distressed. Our gratitude, therefore, goes to those who have toiled out of duty and compassion—highly skilled professionals in health, security, and intelligence; in transport and humanitarian care; servants of governments and others whose motives are simply to help those in need. Australia is saddened and pained but we are not broken. The Australian spirit will remain strong and free and open and tolerant.I was able to witness this for myself at a very moving and inspiring memorial service on Sunday, 20 October, national mourning day, at the Kenmore Baptist Church in the seat of Ryan, where the service was wonderfully led by Joanne Fee and the sermon performed by Pastor Ric Bensen. The resolve I felt in the congregation was remarkable.Today, as we mourn the death of so many of our fellow Australians, and indeed of so many nationals from other countries, many Australians have begun to ask questions about how such evil can be inflicted upon innocent people—innocent people just going about their own lives, doing their own thing, enjoying life in a way that young people do—on this occasion, in a place of peace and tranquillity like Bali. But in a civilised nation like Australia, in a society like ours that values freedom, democracy and free speech, in a community with civilised people, there can never be an acceptable explanation for the events that took place in the Sari nightclub. There can never be an explanation, excuse or any form of understanding when we refer to those who would undertake to orchestrate such indiscriminate and brutal acts of violence.As the Prime Minister said in his address to the parliament on Monday, 14 October 2002, this was a terrible reminder that terrorism could strike anywhere and anyone at any time. That such a brutal act of terror was inflicted in Indonesia is a signal to everyone that no nation is immune to the violence and fear that terrorists would seek to impose upon peaceful people. It is indiscriminate and it is barbaric. History teaches us that appeasing those who mastermind these kinds of violent acts will never guarantee the citizens of peaceful nations permanent peace or security. Therefore, all nations that abhor terror must remain vigilant in the fight against global terror that seems to be the hallmark of our current international times. I certainly encourage the government of Indonesia to remember that this cowardly attack did occur on their soil and also against their people.Free countries and free peoples must never give in to the violence and terror of those who would seek to steal those liberties and values from them. I know that Australia will always stand firm at this critical and defining time in world affairs against the acts of terror that are committed against free peoples in all parts of the world.20:08:008362Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—It is obviously a very sad occasion and has been now for the past number of days subsequent to the events of 12 October. It is an event that has profoundly shaped our country and those who live within it. It is an event that has affected the community in many ways, ways which perhaps may not be recognised now but certainly will be in the future. But it was an event that was intended to rip at the fabric of our community. It was an event that was intended to rip at the fabric of the Indonesian community. It was an event that was meant to throw communities against each other. It was an event that was meant to make us afraid. It was an event that was intended to make us work against each other and to impoverish another nation and to cause ill will between Australia and Indonesia. If there is one thing that we need to take from the outpouring of grief, the outpouring of emotion, the outpouring of resilience, the outpouring of tenacity and the strength of spirit, it is that we must not let these bastards who perpetrated this act cause this disunity within our community or disunity between us and Indonesia, or allow them to damage the fabric of Indonesia.I have been remarkably heartened by the bipartisanship that exists now between our two parties with respect to this particular issue. That is what our country requires, because we are entering a period of war. It is a war that has just been unleashed in our own backyard and it was a war that started with the events of 11 September 2001. It is a war that I suspect, tragically, will continue for some period of time, but it is a war that we must, as a community, be committed to fighting, and we must be committed to defeating this evil that was perpetrated not far from our shores.There is no doubt about it—I am not here to demean or to downplay what actually occurred—this was an atrocity against our young people. It was an atrocity, in my belief, that was aimed at us. No-one from our community has remained untouched by this act. In fact, in my electorate there were two people who were affected. One of those people is no longer with us: Amber O'Donnell, a young lady, 27 years old, from Keysborough. She is missing, presumed dead. Her life was snuffed out by these evil people. Having a look at the explosive devices and the manner in which they were operated, one device was exploded so people would run out onto the street and the second explosion was designed to maim and injure as many people as possible.Everyone knows that there can be no justification for this sort of act. We have seen those who have perpetrated this act and those who are associated with the perpetration of this act— the al-Qaeda network and its Islamic grouping within the south-eastern archipelago, Jemaah Islamiah—basically trying to justify this: that this is a war against Westerners, that this is a war against the liberal democracies. Make no mistake about this: evil in this manner can never be justified.I would certainly counsel those who would look and find some level of justification in this barbaric act that evil like this can never be justified. On many occasions throughout periods of history, evil acts have had some level of explanation after the event. Make no mistake about it: we must not accept that there is a justification for the act that was perpetrated on the shores of Kuta Beach. We must never accept that. I would certainly counsel those who are feeling aggrieved, who are feeling afraid, that there can be no justification for this sort of thing. As the representatives of the people in this House in a bipartisan manner, we are committed to ensuring that those who perpetrated this particular act are brought to justice.I mentioned one young life that was snuffed out on the shores of Kuta Beach. Another individual, Dale Atkins, who lives in my electorate, is now at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital suffering serious burns. Our thoughts as politicians and as representatives of the community are with the families of these particular individuals. We hope that they will recover from the trauma that they have experienced. Time, they say, heals. That is an easy thing to say, but all we can say as politicians, looking somewhat powerlessly at the devastation that was caused by this particular event, is that we empathise with you and we will do what we can as your representatives on both sides of this place to ensure that we deal with the issues that have arisen from the act and bring those who perpetrated this act to justice.Bob Marshall, who was connected with the Sturt Football Club and was also a friend of my mother, was also killed. So this event has actually come fairly close to home. Where people have died, there are also some who have just escaped by an act of God, for want of a better term. Another friend of mine from South Australia sent me a an email about a person who works with him. Her daughter was going to go to the Bali nightclub, but the mother rang her daughter to tell her that her father had had a heart attack. This was 10 minutes before the attack. Had she not received that pretty bad piece of news, she would have walked into that nightclub. As it was, she was some hundreds of metres away when the explosion occurred. That one piece of bad news saved that girl's life. It is an event that was almost designed to reach into every crevice of the Australian community.But the fact is, as I have said, that we must be resolved not to allow this to stop our war on terror. My concern is that I believe this is not an isolated event. I think the Prime Minister has alluded to that and I think the opposition leader has alluded to that—that there will be a sequence. I believe these people are perpetrating attacks on what they categorise as soft targets. So we as a community, notwithstanding our horror at the event, must in a sense be prepared for more attacks of this nature, and possibly on our soil. In my view, that means that we must be prepared to appropriately resource the intelligence agencies that will give us the information we need to stop such attacks occurring.I have just been given a note that says that I am over time. I will finish up on this particular note. There is one particular thing that must not happen: we must not stop our fight against the terror that occurred on 11 September, that occurred on the Indonesian archipelago and that may occur here. As I say, as a parliamentarian, I will do what I can to ensure that that does not happen.20:15:008364Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Bali reminds us all of life's fragility, but particularly for the families involved the loss is immense, and our thoughts are with all of them. I guess for the nation it reaffirms why we value life, the value of human life and also the importance of the values that underline the life of this nation. The events in Bali demonstrate why, as a nation, we must come together. Atrocities such as these tell us how important our common interests are and, without a strong sense of community, we are weaker and vulnerable when it comes to defeating and combating threats such as international terrorism, both outside and inside our borders. This tragic event reaffirms why a strong, united and cohesive community is important to each and every one of us.The tragedy showed Australians at their finest: that great Aussie volunteer spirit; the bravery that so many displayed in the face of adversity; the willingness of those present to lend a helping hand to put their lives at risk to help the wounded and subsequently to help their families; and the response of the nation as a whole to get behind them. Their efforts were in the finest Australian tradition. By and large, many of those involved were young Australians and, if good is to come from evil, resolving to do better by and with our young people should be one of the outcomes of this dreadful act.At my eight-year-old son's primary school last week, the children prayed for the victims of this terrible `fire' in Bali. They called it a fire, because how do you describe the reality of this horrific act to a six-, seven-, eight- or nine-year-old? As the children bent their heads in prayer, their parents were struck by the reality that, as they grow, this is the kind of world they will grow up in. That is why we have to fight terrorism in all its forms, that is why we have to build the strongest nation we can and that is why we have to take leadership on this in our region. It is all about our children and the world that they will inherit from us.Like these primary school children, we do not necessarily know why so many innocent and vibrant people of many nationalities died in Bali. We do know now that they were targeted by terrorists, but we do not necessarily make any sense out of why they would have done this senseless act. But today we do know what they lived for. We do know that we have to protect our way of life because, if we do not, they died for nothing. We now have a responsibility and an obligation to build a strong Australia—a commanding Australia in our region. We have an obligation to guarantee and protect our society and our nation and to build it into something even stronger.The truth is, as Alan Oxley has said, that Australians were attacked in Bali not because of what we have done but because of what we are. To Islamic extremists, Australia is not just a surrogate for the US; it is a surrogate for Western culture. In fact, Australia is the most prominent example of Western culture and civilisation in the region. So, in many ways, this represents a coming of age for Australia. It is a new experience for us baby boomers; it was not a new experience for our parents. We have entered a new era of instability in South-East Asia. This attack may not be the last, and so we face new uncertainties. We do know that we could be targets into the future not necessarily because of our relationship with the US or other actions in international affairs but because of what we are.This point was well made by Hugh White in an article in the Age. He made the point that we need to think constructively about what we can do to rebuild a sense of security after this horrific act and that we have a responsibility: ... both to understand what has happened, and to act intelligently to reduce the chance that it will happen again. It is worth bearing in mind, as Hugh White points out, that: ... Australia is one of the few countries mentioned by Osama bin Laden in post-September 11 appearances so we cannot assume that al Qaeda—if involved—would not have attacked Australians deliberately ...That means the risk of further terrorist attacks on Australians may be higher than we had thought—that is, before this terrible event. He went on to say:From what we know so far, the bombs in Bali confirm that the global problem of terrorism can have profound local consequences. So it makes sense for us to continue to see the problem of terrorism in a global context.But, as Hugh White has said:... Australia's focus should now be on our own immediate region where our interests and responsibilities are greatest. ... That means we should be especially careful about committing resources to operations far from here—no matter how worthwhile those operations might be in themselves—if we might need our forces closer to home.My parents were part of the war before I was born. One thing my mum drummed into me about what she learned from war was that you have to have your own house in order. You cannot confront evil if you are divided and weakened yourself. We have an obligation to outsmart the terrorists. We have an obligation to equip our people with the best education we can give them, not just the education they can afford. We can no longer watch as our universities are left to the ravages of the market. We can no longer tolerate ever-increasing university fees. These are not trite political points; they go to the heart of the survival of the nation in the long term. They go to the heart of how this country can make itself stronger in the region. Education is not just about knowledge, it is about values. H.G. Wells once said that human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. So security works two ways, and security at home as citizens of an undivided community is just as important as security of our borders. In fighting international terrorism, we defend our physical security with armies and our military might, but we defend our civilisation with education.We defend it with clean water and with food elsewhere in the world, because terrorism is also partly built from despair. A solution to the Middle Eastern problem would help but, more fundamentally, doing something to alleviate crushing poverty on the planet is also essential. At the end of the 1990s, one-third of the world's countries had lower per capita income than they did at the beginning of the same decade. The quality and quantity of public education systems in many countries have been declining, and the gap between the wealthy and the poorest nations has been growing. There needs to be a concerted international effort to address the causes of despair and fanaticism in many countries around the world. So difficult times lie ahead. Difficult decisions must be made. We must strike at the heart of terrorism but we must be careful not to exact a toll of yet more innocent lives. Above all, we need at home to make our nation a stronger, fairer and more united community.20:22:008365Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—This has been a sad process for the parliament as we have examined the affairs in Bali. The concept of terrorism is to disrupt, to overshadow, to subjugate, to make uncertain, to have people lose confidence and to make them unsure of their day-to-day living. The purpose of terrorism is to strike in an indiscriminate manner so that people do not know, cannot suspect and cannot plan their lives. The whole purpose of terrorism and its use by fundamentalist Islamic groups is to change the confidence of the West and to have the West withdraw into a shell. That process has been applied by a number of regimes but particularly by the Palestinian fundamentalists to Israel. I note my colleague Mr Danby in the chamber and I know that he understands how the Israeli people have not once drawn back from confronting the very essence of terrorism in what it intends or seeks to impose on a people to bring them to a standstill and make them impotent.These young Australians who have given their lives have launched us into a new era where innocence to some degree is gone, where the joy of freedom and complete openness and access has been removed to some degree. Australians will be more careful and they will be more cautious in future in all of their contacts and interrelationships. That is a sad thing, because the character of an Australian is to be open and dynamic, not to be confrontational but to be clear and willing to accept every other person's outlook no matter what angle they are coming from. That has changed with this attack. I do not know whether the attack was directed at Australians, but Australians have suffered by the process. I believe it was more likely directed at the Western world that cannot be tolerated or understood by the fundamentalists who perpetrate terrorism.What can we do? We can mourn with those who mourn, we can support those who suffer and we can give sustenance to those who have had much taken away. We can also remain resolute and determined that we will not give in to such pressure. We can remain resolute and determined that we will not forgo what is the very essence of Australia's freedom in the hearts and souls and the dynamic attitude that has built this country.I have studied Indonesia for some time and I understand its diversity and the difficulty of managing such a widely dispersed nation with so many cultural differences. I met Mr Wahid when he was in Australia and spent some time with him. President Megawati, who succeeded him, is endeavouring to continue the nation-building process. Australia must wish them well and seek to assist them because I do not detect in either of those individuals any truck with terrorism. But I see a weakness and an inability to act where terror expresses itself. So, by friendship and support and by some toughness which is required amongst friends at times, I believe that we can assist the Indonesian people to take charge of their destiny in a way that they have not in the past.I want to pay tribute to all sections of this parliament. What a privilege it has been to be part of this and to observe the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition joining together, to have every element of government and the resources of this parliament directed to helping our fellow Australians. I have got a pile of press releases: every minister has done something or said something; every significant person in the opposition has said something or done something. Whether it is the offer of sustenance by a backbench member to those families in their electorate who have suffered, or to set in train the great machinery of government in Defence or intelligence services to try and bring about protection and security for the future of this nation, everybody had done something. Whether it is the outpouring of support for families through the Red Cross and through counselling and other services being put together by the Australian Red Cross, or the support services of the RAAF as they move people, or the tragedy of bringing bodies back home, it is something we have not experienced for many years. Every aspect of Australia is focused on this issue, and that is one of the healthy and determinative factors: we are not going to give in to this pressure. You can take examples from those around the world who have not given in and who do survive, and who hold themselves proudly and continue to build their nation. This is a young nation which we are continuing to build, and I want to pay tribute to those who have gone before and those who are determined to continue to uphold the reputation that we have established in the world.20:29:008367Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I think it is true to say that all us would have very vivid memories of certain events in our lives. Most of us remember where we were, for example, when we heard about the Port Arthur massacre and the tragedies that flowed from that event or where we were when we learned that Princess Diana had been tragically killed. I remember where I was when Gough Whitlam was sacked in 1975. Some members in the chamber might remember where they were when JFK was assassinated. I don't—I was a little too young for that—but I imagine that is another example of such a tragic event. I am sure all of us will remember where we were on September 11. It was an early morning awakening for me. Many had heard of it the night before on the late night news. I had had an early night the night before and it was an early morning awakening for me. Certainly most of us will remember where we were when we first heard of the tragic events in Bali on October 12.I am only going to make a brief contribution, as so many people before me have spoken so eloquently, sincerely and compassionately, but I want to be associated with the resolution moved by the Prime Minister and supported by the Leader of the Opposition, by all of us on this side, by the Independents in the House of Representatives and no doubt unanimously by all of those in the other chamber. The important point to be made about these events in Bali is that we have been able to demonstrate again what a great society we have here in Australia. It has been evident by the way people have rallied behind one another, whether they be those who were there on the spot rescuing others, those in Bali providing medical assistance, those who owned businesses that played a role in bringing people home—for example, an airline business—or those who played some sort of role in ensuring that people were able to get back to mainland Australia for the treatment they needed and to be reunited with their families. Like many before me, I want to thank all of those people who have played a role in some way, and that goes all the way to the Prime Minister—who I think has been very sensitive and has acted appropriately in all circumstances throughout the course of these events—right down to the last person maybe working overtime at the Qantas terminal helping to ensure that someone is reunited with their loved ones. None of us here could even hope to fully understand and appreciate the grief of those families who have lost someone or, maybe even worse, are still waiting to find out whether they will ever be reunited with their loved ones. It must be a terrible feeling. Of course, it will get lost in the wash in the long term, but there will be people who will suffer from their injuries for decades—indeed, for the rest of their lives. They will not be on the front page or even page 2 or page 3 of the Australian, but in 30 or 40 or 50 years time people who were young Australians at the time of the events in Bali will still be paying the price for those completely unjustified and atrocious actions of those who perpetrated this mass murder and inflicted so much pain and grief on so many.I want to associate myself with all the speakers before me in thanking all those who have been involved, and I want to extend my very deep sympathy to the families of those who were injured and to the families of those who have lost their lives. I join with all other members in condemning those who are responsible and I join with the previous speaker in saying that we should do all we can to pursue those who are responsible. Despite some differences in opinion about the balance, I think all Australians agree that we should do all we can to bring these people to justice.I want to say something about community spirit. I saw some community spirit last Sunday afternoon as I toured the bushfire-affected areas of my electorate. Indeed, the day before, I was out there talking to firefighters in their overalls in 38-degree heat, putting their lives at risk for the protection of others and for the protection of the property of others. We see this, day in and day out. But when I toured the aftermath on Sunday and talked to people who had lost their homes, it gave me some appreciation, I suppose, of what others were going through in other places. It was another poignant reminder of the community spirit we have in Australia and the way in which people are prepared to dedicate so much of their time and risk their lives for others. We saw this again in Victoria with that very unfortunate incident at Monash University: people prepared to put their lives on the line to assist others.At the moment in Cessnock there is a local council appeal. Many companies are contributing to this appeal, from companies such as Norse Hydro, a big aluminium smelter, which has contributed $20,000, right down to smaller businesses like Alan Jurd's real estate company putting in amounts of money and Garbis Simonia at Western Aluminium putting in money to help others in need. No doubt Australians everywhere will be making a significant financial contribution to assist those who have been affected by this terrible tragedy in Bali.I am very pleased to have the opportunity as a member of this place to rise and support the motion of the Prime Minister. Since I have been here, this is the fourth occasion on which we have been through this sort of experience. I went through this in the parliament with the death of Princess Diana; I mentioned that earlier. I certainly went through this in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre. On both occasions the parliament was suspended, and it takes a big event for the government to move to do that. We have gone through it this week and last week. I also went through it on the occasion of the death of my good friend and former colleague Greg Wilton. They are sad occasions, and let us all hope and pray that we will not go through too many more of them.20:37:008368Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I had the opportunity and the privilege to attend a number of services on the weekend in memory of those persons killed on 12 October in Bali. On Sunday, there was a particularly moving service at Government House on St Georges Terrace. That service was of special significance because of the very close association between Western Australia and Bali. Our state's relative isolation draws us close to our northern neighbour and nourishes the relationship between our community and Bali that is so familiar to us. It is that closeness that has tragically led to the deaths of so many Western Australians—victims of terrorism.The enormity of the tragedy is still unfolding. Our thoughts are with the victims, their families and those still recovering from this immoral, despicable act. But our thoughts are also turning to those behind this atrocity. I am reminded that on 1 October last year the then mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, stood before the General Assembly of the United Nations. Three weeks prior to Giuliani's address, almost 3,000 office workers in downtown Manhattan had been incinerated in the World Trade Centre by the al-Qaeda terrorists. Addressing the assembly, Giuliani eschewed the temptation to ignore the atrocity, to accommodate terror. He said to the assembled delegates:... I ask you to look in your hearts and recognize that there is no room for neutrality on the issue of terrorism. You're either with civilization or with terrorists. On one side is democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life; on the other is tyranny, arbitrary executions, and mass murder. We're right and they're wrong. It's as simple as that. Giuliani went on:Let those who say that we must understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of funerals we are having in New York City and explain those insane, maniacal reasons to the children who will grow up without fathers and mothers, to the parents who have had their children ripped from them for no reason at all ... There is no excuse for mass murder, just as there is no excuse for genocide. Those who practice terrorism—murdering or victimizing innocent civilians—lose any right to have their cause understood by decent people and lawful nations.As Australians, we were profoundly affected by the events of 11 September 2001, not least because of the loss of Australian life on that terrible day. Yet, observing from the other side of the world, we could not help but experience the carnage in the abstract. But now the effect is personal; it transcends the abstract.We have as a nation entered a family of peoples touched and scarred by terrorism. This cowardly, repulsive action is but the most recent in a global litany of outrages against decent peoples. In the past two years alone, we have seen numerous terrorist attacks, including a bombing probably by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front outside the US Embassy in Manila, injuring nine people; the assault on an Indian airport by the Lashkar-e-Tayiba group; a car bomb outside the BBC's London studios; the murder of two policemen by ETA in Hernani, Spain; the detonation of a bomb at an Israeli bus stop, killing one person and wounding 60; the bombing by Hamas of a nightclub in Tel Aviv, causing over 140 casualties; and the bombing of a Jerusalem pizza restaurant, also by Hamas, killing 15 and wounding more than 90.In Pakistan alone, anti-Christian terrorist attacks have occurred on St Dominic's Church in Bahawalphur, killing 16; at the Protestant International Church in Islamabad, killing five; on the executive secretary of the Karachi diocese of the Church of Pakistan; at the Murree Christian School, killing six; at the Christian Hospital in Taxila, killing four; and at the Institute for Peace and Justice charity in Karachi, killing seven.Perhaps it is because these attacks seem so senseless, or perhaps it is because the deliberate targeting of civilians seems so alien, but whatever the reason it is clear that many of us are unable to grasp the nature of this war. Already we are hearing the rumblings on the fringes that somehow we deserved this, that this is `blowback' for Australia's role in East Timorese independence, the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or Australia's position on the Iraqi regime. The Anglican Primate, Dr Peter Carnley, aired such comments during his address to the Anglican Synod last week. Dr Carnley suggested:Given the bombing of Afghanistan and the dispersal in disarray of al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, and Australia's high profile support of President George Bush's stance in relation to a possible war on Iraq, it was surely only a matter of time before Australian lives were sacrificed in some form of retaliatory action.Apparently it seems perfectly normal that the murder of Australian tourists is somehow retaliation. With others, I have been profoundly disappointed and concerned by these and similar comments. For one thing they reveal irrational Australocentric navel-gazing. Terrorists have consistently targeted Western civilians for their own motivations, not for reasons that meet a self-flagellating template. Perhaps we cannot do much about how others view this, except not let their confusion become ours. As US Ambassador Schieffer noted over the weekend, one cannot opt on or opt off the terrorist list. Or in the words of Mark Steyn, writing in The Spectator, `They kill us because they hate us.' Let us apply some logic to the Carnley assertion. The probability is that the perpetrators belong to a radical Islamic fundamentalist group—let us assume that. First, the rationale for these attacks is actually a perverted Islamo-fascism. This Islamic radicalism does not discriminate between one `infidel' and another. As the Prime Minister has already noted, the bomb blasts in Kuta did not just affect Australians, British, Americans and Indonesians; the devastation did not spare Swedes, French, Ecuadorians, Brazilians, Germans, Greeks, Canadians, New Zealanders or Koreans. Second, the planned attack on the Australian High Commission in Singapore in January this year, an attack that was foiled by joint intelligence cooperation across the region, predated the current debate on Iraq. Third, the connection is fallacious, as has been noted by American academic James Lindgren. Professor Lindgren pointed out:There are those who say that Australia somehow provoked the Bali mass murder by supporting the US in the expected war with Iraq. Some of the same people also say that there is no evidence of al-Qaeda links with Iraq. If there is no al-Qaeda link to Iraq, then why were Australians attacked by al-Qaeda for supporting the US in the expected war with Iraq?Finally, the connection is worthless. Even if this were in some way, any way, blowback, then what? Australia's position on East Timor was just and right. Our position on al-Qaeda was just and right. Our position on Iraq is just and right. Should a free nation craft its policies not by reference to ideals or principles but rather by trying to minimise the offence taken by murderers or the attention of fanatics? Has it come to this: that we should not meet the gaze of terrorists, that we should hope the storm passes us by or encourage the terrorists to target others so that we are not targets ourselves? No, that would be unthinkable. Others say, `This is all because of the US support of Israel.' I am afraid the objective of these terrorists is not a self-governing Palestine but the death of the West. Now it may well be the case that for certain terrorists, affronted by Washington's support for Israel, blowing up tourists in Bali makes sense. But that ignores the reality of the terrorists' unprovoked hatred of the West, our culture, our values, our way of life. By their act of terror and their display of barbarity, these killers have brought upon their own heads what will be the terrible and swift sword of justice.It is incumbent upon us as a nation and as a parliament to do all that we can to comfort and protect the victims and their families and to protect the innocent people of Bali and Indonesia and to do all within our power to hunt down and punish those who perpetrated this atrocity. I join with all my colleagues in the parliament, with my constituents in my electorate and with the good people of Australia in supporting this motion.20:46:008370Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Many of us woke on Sunday morning of last week to hear for the first time news of an explosion in Bali. In the course of that morning and throughout that Sunday, it became clear to all of us how significant that event was. It became clear that this was an outrageous terrorist attack and it became clear that the consequences of that attack were, in a word, disastrous. The bomb blasts occurred in a part of Bali that was popular, particularly with young Australians. When it became clear that this was a terrorist attack, it brought home for the first time to all Australians the real threat of a terrorist attack in Australia or close to our shores. There is hardly a street in a town or a suburb in Australia that does not have someone who has been to Bali or had a friend or a family member who has gone to Bali. That particularly applies to people from my own state of Western Australia where, for many people, a holiday in Bali is as familiar as a trip to Rottnest. The bringing home of these real threats to our security by such a barbaric and murderous act against innocent Australians and their Balinese hosts triggered the first of many emotional responses. The initial reaction, in my view, was one of shock, then sadness, followed by anger and a determination to see that the perpetrators of this terrible crime are brought to justice. Since last Sunday, all of us have witnessed on our television screens expressions of enormous shock and distress and scenes of people assisting the injured, searching for missing wives and husbands or grieving, having identified family members or friends killed in the blast. Other people have arrived back in Australia from Bali, in various states of anguish and shock, to tell of losing friends or of their escape.In the midst of this tragedy, great Australian national characteristics and virtues have shone through. Among the expressions of sadness and loss are stories of great courage and mateship, of people who have survived the tragedy doing what they could to ensure that others were saved—no matter how badly they may have been injured or burnt, there was always someone worse off than them who needed more assistance. There then began an extensive operation to airlift from Bali those people who survived the bombing but who were left with grave injuries, in particular very serious burns.Throughout the hospitals of Australia medical staff have attended to the victims of the attack, irrespective of whether those victims were Australians, Balinese or nationals of other countries. Many victims suffering horrible injuries, in particular burns, were transferred to the burns unit of Royal Perth Hospital, which I visited last Friday in my capacity as the hospital's local federal member and as shadow minister for health. For all the great things done at that hospital and burns unit, there was great distress at the hospital that one person had died in their care. In the last 24 hours, we have seen the death in that hospital of another woman, Tracy Thomas, a resident from the suburb of Inglewood in my electorate. I know this will have caused great distress in the burns unit as, of course, it will bring to Tracy Thomas's family and friends.In the course of the reaction by Australians since the tragic events, there has been a terrific response from doctors and nurses, whether they were on holiday themselves in Bali, whether they worked for the Royal Australian Air Force, whether they worked as medical staff for the other defence forces or whether they worked as volunteers from public hospitals throughout Australia. Their actions in the course of the last couple of weeks have been terrific. What is often not mentioned is the terrific work of hospital support staff—not doctors or nurses but hospital workers, whether they work in sterilisation units in hospitals, whether they are cleaners, whether they prepare meals in kitchens or whether they work in hospital laundries. The work that has been performed by these people, often known as the invisible hospital workers, has been tremendous.As you know, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, when parliament resumed on Monday of last week, members and senators united in our concern for the victims of the Bali terrorist attack and their families. It is often the case that during question time we spend most of our time, effort and wit trying to draw public attention to the things which divide us. In the last week and a half since the Bali bombings, we have spent most of our time in question time trying to underline those things which unite us.On Sunday, 18 October—a week after we woke to hear the news about an explosion in Bali for the first time when we had injured Australians at home under medical care and Australian investigative teams in place in Bali in a joint operation with local Indonesian forces and investigators from other countries—our nation observed a national day of mourning. For me, the national day of mourning started on Saturday, 17 October at the Perth Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Coolbinia in my electorate in Perth. There, the congregation in the shule, in the course of their Saturday service, devoted a special time to prayers, led by Rabbi David Freilich, for the victims of Bali. Their special prayer included the following:We turn to you in prayer for the Australian and other victims of the act of terror carried out in Bali by unscrupulous people who are enemies of democracy, conscience and humanity. Hear our cry of pain at the brazen wickedness which is part of a new, horrific phase of terrorism in which we fear that no country, or institution, no nation or individual can now be assured of their safety, security or dignity ... Inspire people of goodwill everywhere to speak up and insist that acts of torture and terror, wherever carried out, no matter by whom or for whatever motive, cannot be tolerated.The sentiments of that expression of prayer on a Saturday in Coolbinia in my electorate I think sum up very much the response of the Australian people to this incident. On Sunday at Government House Gardens in Perth, thousands of Western Australians paid their tribute of flowers to the victims and their families. I was pleased to attend that tribute, together with very many of my state and federal parliamentary colleagues.There will, of course, be very many lessons to be learned from this attack. In my view this is not the time for a critical analysis or a critique, but in the future we will be able to examine in the cold light of day, literally after the dust has settled, the effectiveness of our security arrangements, the appropriateness and the effect of our travel advice to Australians travelling overseas, the coordination of our response—military, police, investigative and medical—to the tragic events and, given that this incident, while so close to Australia, occurred on foreign soil, the effectiveness of our relationship with Indonesia.I extend my condolences to the families of the victims as we mourn their loss and as a nation and as a parliament dedicate ourselves to securing justice for the victims of this terrible terrorist act.20:54:008372Ciobo, Steven, MPMr CIOBO00AN0MoncrieffLP10—The first I knew of a tragedy having occurred in Bali was when my home telephone rang on Sunday morning of last week. Pam Cosman, the mother of Glenn Cosman, a very good friend of mine, was on the phone. She was terrified of the news she had heard that morning of there having been a terrorist attack in Bali. Understandably, Pam Cosman was anxious to know if I knew anything and whether I could help. Initially, I felt speechless and powerless. I had the feeling of wanting answers to hundreds of questions—wanting them answered immediately but not even knowing where to begin. I knew nothing of the attack prior to that telephone call. But the horror was quickly revealed on Sky News that day, as I learned of the bloodthirsty, nefarious, calculated and evil act that had been devised and executed by gutless cowards in Kuta Beach. Last Sunday, once I had learned of the enormity of this tragic attack, I made many phone calls, anxious and concerned not only to find out how my friend Glenn Cosman was doing but also to find out who else on the Gold Coast had been affected and how I could possibly help.I am absolutely delighted to be able to associate myself not only with the remarks that have been made on this side of the House but with the overall spirit and ethos that has descended upon this parliament over the past week, as we have come together as a nation—and as we have come together as elected representatives to distil to the Australian public our oneness and our consensus as a parliament. Reading the media reports of the past week, I have been truly inspired. Although these events are tragic and I will never understand them, and although I can never possibly begin to understand the pain, anguish and suffering that so many must be going through, I have nonetheless seen the light in the darkness.Glenn Cosman, in so many ways, in addition to being my mate, is in fact a hero. Glenn is a hero—and I know of this because I have read of his actions in the newspapers, not because it is something that he would ever profess to me—and he made a great difference at the Sari nightclub last Saturday evening. Glenn Cosman was one of the people who, fortunately, God smiled upon. Although he was standing near the very front of the Sari Club, thankfully he was spared, even though others behind him were tragically murdered as a result of the attack. Glenn Cosman found himself—as he described to me last Sunday on the national day of mourning—standing at the gates of hell. He said that he opened his eyes to suddenly realise that he had no idea of what was going on but that there were bodies all around him.Glenn told me that the first thing he did was to look around to see where his two mates he was in Bali with, Glen Forster and Andrew Csabi, were. He could not find Andrew but he found Glen Forster. He said to Glen, `Glen, pick yourself up; we've got to get out of here.' Glen was unable to walk, having had both legs broken right through and having severe damage to both feet. Glenn Cosman, out of instinct and out of mateship, grabbed Glen and dragged him out of the Sari nightclub. Glenn Cosman then spent the next hours sprinting to the nearest shop, grabbing bottles of water to pour not only on Glen but on all the victims who were burning alive at the Sari nightclub. He is, in my mind, a hero for what he did—for his calmness, for his clarity of thought and for the regard that he had not only for Andrew and for Glen Forster but for all of those around him. He worked quickly, despite his own pain, to help alleviate some of their pain.Many of the victims of this tragic attack live on the Gold Coast, and I was sad to learn that there were actually quite a few deaths. Robert Thwaites, a 24-year-old student formerly from Griffith University—a medallist at Griffith University—who I believe held so much incredible promise, is still listed as missing, his body as yet not recovered. My heart goes out to his family and I wish them peace. Jared Gane, a 27-year-old, also of the Gold Coast, was murdered last Saturday evening. Dr Bruce Whelan, a local doctor on the Gold Coast, lost his son-in-law, Shane Walsh-Till, who was also murdered as a result of the gutless cowards who came from Indonesia—but who, of course, do not represent the Indonesian people.There were many that were injured, including Liza Coker from Miami. Jodi Cearns, the daughter of Glynis Nunn-Cearns and David Cearns, is still in Melbourne's Prince Alfred Hospital battling for her life. But each day Jodi shows that unique element that defines Australian courage. Jodi was rescued by Mermaid Beach marine biologist Stewart Strong, who happened to be at the Sari nightclub as well and who hastily assembled a stretcher he put together from street signs he found outside to carry Jodi to safety. Additionally, there were eight Southport Sharks that were in clubs at Kuta Beach that evening. They were there on an end-of-year trip—there to celebrate a successful year and to enjoy the mateship and camaraderie that goes with those end-of-year trips. Seven of them have now returned. Tragically though, one is still missing—a young man also cut down in his prime: Billy Hardy, who is only 20 years old. Andy Devine, Dale Robson, Jayson Pate, Jamie Miles and two brothers, Mitchell and Luke Ryan, were all fortunately spared.I had the opportunity to meet Jamie Miles, a 22-year-old man, at the Southport Church of Christ service that took place on Sunday as part of Australia's national day of mourning. Although I only met him briefly, and although I sat amongst a crowd of hundreds, you could easily detect and understand the pain that was present. Our national day of mourning was a fundamental part of sharing our grief as a nation but also helping, as a nation, to build strength.It would be remiss of me not to recognise the incredible pain and tragic loss of life inflicted on the Balinese community and on the many families and loved ones from nations throughout the world who are all adversely affected by this nefarious attack. I also wish to put on the record what I consider to be that unique Australian trait: mateship. To those volunteers, the armed forces personnel, rescue service personnel, consular officials, everyone who joined together to form literally an army of people willing to assist the victims and to evacuate hundreds of Australians out of Bali within 48 hours: thank you. It is a testament to the way we as a nation work together at times like this and it is a true way of holding up the mateship all Australians enjoy. It is, in short, true Aussie spirit. I also take this opportunity to thank the dedicated medical teams that have worked nonstop throughout this entire period. I read in the papers today that the burns unit at the Perth hospital has been operating for five days straight. That is absolutely commendable and worthy of notice.No words can ever heal the numbing pain of such a monumental loss of life. There is absolutely nothing that I, or indeed any of us, can say in this place that in some way will soothe the anguish so many families and loved ones have experienced in this nation over the past week and will continue to experience in the days to come. The simple fact is that people were slain in the most awful and thoroughly useless way. It begs the question: what is the purpose behind these attacks? What is the purpose of these mass murderers who undertake this type of activity? I hope I stand as a testament to the Australian spirit when I say I know all Australians will never cower to the gutless cowards who executed this attack at Kuta Beach. We may be portrayed as infidels by those who are radical in their views, but we all enjoy the liberties that were given to us by God. It is my view that all Australians should come together. In conclusion, I say to all those affected families: may you draw strength from our strength, may you draw courage from our courage and may you draw peace from the love that is extended to you by all Australians.21:04:008374McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I want to speak today about the shocking events in Bali over a week ago—events that have shaken this nation to its core, forcing us to re-evaluate what is important in our lives. On behalf of the people of the electorate of Stirling, I would like to pass on our condolences to the families of the victims who were tragically killed by this heinous act. I would also like to pray for the speedy recovery of all the people injured in the explosions. The physical wounds will heal in time, but the mental scars will last a long time not only in the minds of the victims but in all of our minds.The images of complete devastation and carnage created by those bomb blasts are images that will stay with me for the rest of my life. We saw shattered lives, shattered hopes and shattered dreams on our television screens. We also saw acts of courage that astound me even now. We saw young Australians continually going back into a raging inferno to bring out strangers and to look for their mates. The courage and strength of character of the members of the Kingsley Football Club from Western Australia, who stayed in Bali for days after the bomb blasts looking for their lost mates, was an inspiration to us all. We gained inspiration from the efforts of our RAAF personnel, who evacuated our citizens in 24 hours, saving many lives. We have gained inspiration from the doctors and nurses all around Australia who are dealing with the burns victims and who have worked nonstop since the tragedy began. We must acknowledge the doctors who were in Bali on holidays who worked in appalling conditions to save so many lives in those chaotic first hours. I hope that we do not forget this chaos or forget to help the people of Bali upgrade their hospitals so that these scenes are never repeated. This act of terror has caused us to lose our innocence, our sense of isolation from a terror that we have previously felt so removed from. What does this mean for our country? Collectively, we have experienced the disbelief, the shock and now the anger. What we need to be aware of is that as a nation we cannot afford to be drawn into the cycle of terror and hatred that the perpetrators of this crime operate in—this is their aim. They want to destroy the fabric of our nation and make us scared to go about our everyday lives. We all need to remember that through chaos they wish to create chaos. In some respects, we are now afraid. We do not need to hide this. What happened was shocking and has caused fear. Fear is not necessarily a bad thing; it is the natural reaction to shocking events. We should use the fear that this event has created to increase our awareness of what is going on around us. This fear should be used in a positive way. We should not let the fear we are all feeling consume us with hatred. I am worried that there will be ramifications for a number of ethnic groups in our society. We are all Australians and we were all shocked by the Bali bombings. We would only be playing into the hands of the terrorists if we were to react with anger towards sections of our society.Thinking about Bali and my fears for racial violence within Australia made me think about Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. After the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr in Memphis, Robert Kennedy made one of the most poignant speeches this century. I would like to quote some of this speech today and reflect on its meanings. There are some lessons we can take from these words:In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it is perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. For those of you who are black—considering the evidence there evidently is that there were white people who were responsible—you can be filled with bitterness, with hatred, and a desire for revenge. We can move in that direction as a country, in great polarization—black people amongst black, white people amongst white, filled with hatred toward one another.Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and to replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand with compassion and love.These words struck a chord with me. We need to use this tragedy `to understand and to comprehend, and to replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand with compassion and love'. We should heed the words of Robert Kennedy. As a nation we need to use the Bali bombings to look at our society to try and understand some of the ethnic groups that exist within our society, and to accept that they are Australian, regardless of where they come from, how they dress, or what their cultural and spiritual practices are.We should not direct the anger we are feeling towards the terrorists against Islamic people in Australia. They are as shocked as we are. They have expressed their shock and concern for the lost and injured in very public statements. We should use this tragedy to make an effort to understand with compassion and love. This will make our country stronger; this will thwart the aims of the terrorists. They want to see us rise in anger against Islamic members of our country. They want to see us ostracise them, isolate them and eventually hate them. Let us not give these murderers that satisfaction—if not for ourselves, then for the memory of the Australians who died as a result of the cowardice and hatred of the terrorists. Robert Kennedy, during his speech, also quoted his favourite poet. What this poet said still haunts me. It is so apt in this situation. Kennedy said that his favourite poet was Aeschylus, who wrote:In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.The pain caused by the Bali bombings still traumatises us, but dealing with the savagery of this act is making us stronger and wiser as a nation. I hope that through the wisdom we gain we can look at our own society and make it a better place in which to live. The terrorists hate our society. They hate the way we live and they want to create chaos in our society, to split it and rend it asunder. Finally, I would like to again quote Robert Kennedy, from the same speech. These are words that we should all reflect on:Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that and say a prayer for our country and for our people.I attended the healing service on Sunday held by the Governor, Lieutenant General Sanderson, and the Premier, Dr Geoff Gallop, in the beautiful and serene grounds of Government House in Western Australia. It was inspiring to see Australians of all different backgrounds, cultures and spiritualities join together with Balinese people to pray for the lost, the injured and the traumatised. I think it was inspiring in that it is what we should be doing and will be doing in the future as a way of dealing with our grief: healing and moving on. A productive path for our society to follow is for us to stay together as a people and to remember the words of that wonderful song `I am, you are, we are Australian'.21:12:008376Dutton, Peter, MPMr DUTTON00AKIDicksonLP10—Sunday morning, 12 October was one of those times—like September 11 last year—that will remain etched in our memories forever. On that morning, I was with my family—in fact, I was at my father's home enjoying a Sunday morning family get-together—when I spoke by phone with a friend who informed me of the horrific tragedy that had unfolded only a few hours earlier. The irony of the situation was not lost; I remember thinking that at the time. Here I was enjoying the company of loved ones, no different from the times that many of those Australians had enjoyed with their own families in happier times—a catch-up with your mum and dad, your brothers and sisters, your kids for a barbecue or dinner or just to watch a movie on TV. The irony, of course, does not stop there, because it is that way of life—our carefree, democratic way of life—that these extremist elements aim to destroy.What brings this tragedy home to so many Australians is the realisation and the thought that `it could have been me, my sister, my cousin or my mate'—the realisation that terrorism is no longer something that flashes across the nightly news a world away but a sobering understanding that terrorists with no regard for human life and a hatred towards our own way of life have infiltrated our society. The events of 12 October 2002 will long be etched into the minds of not only the families and friends of the victims of this horrific and shocking act but also the remaining 19½ million Australians.At this time of ultimate need, our thoughts and prayers are with those families who have lost loved ones. The entire nation is devastated and will mourn as one, offering whatever we can to those most affected. My advice—thanks to God—was that no residents from the Dickson electorate were among the fatalities, but like all Australians Dickson residents will have friends or family who have been touched by this tragedy.The loss of innocent lives and the loss of innocence itself has changed the people of Bali and will undoubtedly change the people of Australia in turn. These predators seek to destroy our spirit, but they will not succeed. They do not realise that this country was born of the Anzac spirit—a spirit of determination and mateship and a spirit of doubling our resolve in the face of adversity. Their attacks have united this country. They have served to strengthen the Australian spirit. Since that fateful day, Australians have united as one to help and to bring our injured and dead home. This started at the moment of the terrorist strike. We now hear stories of young men and women carrying their mates from the wreckage despite their own injuries. Our doctors, nurses, medical staff, airline staff, police and armed services swung into action and provided a response that few other countries could have provided. The efforts of all those who arrived at the scene following this terrible tragedy to assist with the investigation and identification processes are greatly appreciated by all Australians.It is appropriate to commend the Prime Minister on the way in which he has been solid— and been solid behind an entire nation—during a period of darkness. His ongoing resolve to ensure that those affected by this terrible episode in our history are comforted and supported is reflective of his dedicated leadership. I thank the Prime Minister and the ministry in general for their compassion and their dedication to our nation—a nation in mourning.The outpouring of grief for lost friends and family members was immediately followed by a great show of generosity from complete strangers who were willing to do whatever they could to help and comfort those most affected. This is the Australian way. This is the nation we love and cherish. Any loss of innocent life abroad or within Australia's borders is tragic, but it is even more so here, given the magnitude and the mostly young ages of those affected by this horrible tragedy. Our carefree ways and easygoing attitudes have been destroyed by terrorists, by people who have no care or concern for their victims. Words are simply not enough to express my sorrow today for those who have lost loved ones, friends and family. There is no real way for anybody to express in words the pain they feel at this moment. People's lives have been changed—and changed forever.Since coming to this place I have relished the opportunity of forming part of the democratic process that changes people's lives on a daily basis. Now it falls upon us to do whatever we can to try to stop a tragedy like this from ever occurring again, both inside and outside Australia's borders. We must now face the unfortunate reality of global terrorism and the devastating impact it can have, and has had, on all of us. There is no simple solution to the growing band of international terrorist groups that operate without care or remorse. There are, however, measures that can be put in place to minimise the chances of these groups being able to carry out such a horrific act of evil again. As the United States learnt after 11 September last year, the key is prevention. As mentioned by the member for Holt in his speech here tonight, the Australian intelligence community must be adequately resourced. It must also be equipped with sufficient powers to ensure it has the capability of preventing such an atrocity on our own shores. It is comforting to know that this government is attempting to ensure this is so. Without the appropriate powers to prevent such an attack on our way of life, our country remains vulnerable to those who seek to destroy that way of life.The Australian resolve is strong and will not be beaten. As a nation, we will never forget those innocent people who prematurely had their lives taken from them in Bali on 12 October 2002. They will forever be remembered by families, friends and loved ones they have left behind. The words of Sir Winston Churchill should always be remembered: we will never give in—never ever, ever, ever.21:19:008378Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00Acres of newsprint and hours of video and radio have attempted to capture the grief and the horror of the Bali bombings. I cannot compete, nor would I try to, with this torrent of grief. But I want to add my comments and to recognise those in my community who have suffered and to ask some questions about terrorists and terrorism.I first want to express my deep distress, which I know reflects the feeling of my constituents, at the lives lost in Bali, at the families torn apart and the injury and trauma of those who survived. In particular, I want to mention two women who have been given some publicity: twins aged 39, missing, believed dead, living in my constituency—two women who went for a holiday, their first together in 17 years. I would like to pass on my sincere condolences to their families, their friends and all those in the community who care for them. Jane and Jenny Corteen will be missed by a great many people. Although we sympathise, most of us cannot begin to understand the extent of their loss under these gruesome and brutal circumstances. But we owe them our intelligence and our analysis. We cannot do very much to assuage their grief but we should attempt to prevent such acts in future.People tend to describe terrorist acts as senseless. The tragedy is that some people, the perpetrators, think that these acts do make sense, that they are in some sense justified. These people hold life so cheap that they are prepared to murder hundreds of their fellow human beings to make a political point. They are prepared to kill themselves for causes that in my view are already fatally undermined by the fact that they are prepared to kill others to achieve their goals. But we must ask, particularly as parliamentarians and as leaders in this community: how could this be; how could they think that way; how has this come to be? We must, of course, find and punish those responsible for these murders, for that is what they are. If we are to really succeed in reducing the frequency of terrorist acts of this kind, we also must explore how people can come to view their fellow human beings as instruments of their campaigns, as disposable; in other words, as having no value. How can they come to regard life as so easily set aside?In this so-called global war on terrorism, it is important to ask first exactly what we mean by terrorism. The usual definition goes something like `the use or threat of violence by small groups against non-combatants of large groups for avowed political goals'. Terrorism, as one analyst put it, is the warfare of the weak, the recourse of those desperate for a cause that they cannot win by conventional means. We should also remember that state terrorism against a state's own citizens—as practised by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and a smaller league of tyrants—has also killed many millions of non-combatants. And, of course, wars everywhere now kill more civilians than soldiers.As I pointed out earlier, the only way some of us can bear to contemplate acts of terror such as those that killed our fellow citizens in Bali, the people of Bali and those of other lands, is to conclude that there must be something fundamentally wrong with the terrorists. They must be crazy, suicidal or psychopaths without moral feelings or indeed any feelings for others. Unfortunately, this is too easy. Many years of research reveal that psychopathology and personality disorder is no more likely amongst terrorists than among non-terrorists from the same background. It is easy to call them crazy. It allows us to escape proper analysis. It adds nothing to our understanding of their behaviour, or of those who might do the same thing in the future, to call them crazy or evil. Rather we have to face the fact—and this is a very hard fact to face—that normal people can be terrorists, that in some cases perhaps we are ourselves capable of terrorist acts.This fact is already implied in recognising that military and police forces in some dictatorships, past and present, have been and are eminently capable of killing non-combatants. They were in Nazi Germany; they were in Kosovo. Some of you will have read the excellent work called Hitler's Willing Executioners. How did ordinary people come to be so vile and so brutal? No-one wakes up one morning and decides today is the day to become a terrorist. The path by which otherwise normal people become capable of doing terrible things is usually gradual, perhaps imperceptible to everyone including the individual. The process is well described by Horowitz in The Deadly Ethnic Riot. Terrorists, we have to acknowledge, kill for the same reasons that groups have killed each other for centuries. They kill, as one writer put it, for cause and comrades, a combination of ideology and intense group dynamics. The group values represented in the cause are often focused with an intensity that we could not begin to understand, with a group of like-minded people who are prepared to perpetrate terrorist violence. Members of a terrorist group put the group first, above all others, dropping every other connection with their communities, often with their families and their friends, isolating themselves. The power of the group becomes enormous and it extends to every personal and moral judgment. In that sense, they do become warped. This power can make violence against what they perceive as the enemy not just acceptable but necessary. It has to be said that even armies cut trainees off from their previous lives so that the combat unit can become their family. These processes are not abnormal, they are normal, and we should recognise that they occur daily around us. That is not to excuse the process but rather to try and use our intelligence to understand it. In brief, the psychology behind terrorist violence is normal psychology, abnormal only in the intensity of the group dynamics that link cause with comrades and that allow violence of the kind that we have seen. Terrorism is designed to inflict immediate damage in destroying lives and material, but terrorists hope of course that the long-term cost will be much greater. They want to create fear and uncertainty, far beyond the victims and those close to them—the people whose lives we are mourning today. They want the people they perceive as their enemy to spend time and money on security; they want to lay, in effect, an enormous tax on every aspect of the enemy's society, a tax that transfers resources from productive and creative purposes to antiproductive security measures. That is something to which we must be very alert.In particular, terrorists hope, indeed they wish devoutly, that they will elicit a violent response that will assist them in mobilising people who are not yet engaged. A terrorist group is at the top of a pyramid of supporters and sympathisers. The base of the pyramid is composed of all those who sympathise with the terrorist cause even though they may disagree with the violent means. We have seen this in many cases—in Northern Ireland, for instance, where the base of the pyramid might be said to be those who agree with the slogan `Brits out', as they did in the seventies and eighties, who would not themselves use violence but provided a seedbed for the terrorists. In the Islamic world, the base of the pyramid is all those who think that they have been hurt and humiliated over the years. They would not themselves use violence, but the terrorists hope to mobilise them. The nature of our response may or may not succeed in doing that.Terrorists hope generally that a clumsy and over-generalised strike against them will turn those sympathetic but immobilised people to action and sacrifice, and strengthen their own status at the apex of that pyramid. We have seen that happen over past decades. They also hope for a reaction of stereotyping and prejudice so that more people will identify with them, that they will be seen not just as a tiny extremist splinter group but as representative of a whole group of people. They are tendencies that we must resist at any price. The reaction of stereotyping and prejudice against Arabs and Muslims will turn them—if we overreact globally by stereotyping all of them—from sources of help, the moderates particularly, against terrorism to sources of further terrorism.Since the bombing of the World Trade Centre and now since the bombing in Bali much of the global response to terrorism has shifted from criminal justice—finding, trying and punishing perpetrators—to the idea of waging war. I think this has consequences. Framing terrorism and the response to terrorism implies a movement from individual blame to group blame. I think that is a mistake. The terrorists are not numerous, they may be widespread and they may be brutal and dangerous, but to the extent that we assume that they are representative, we are giving them a great deal more power than they deserve. We should ensure that we find every one of the murderers who killed our fellow citizens and that we try to do everything we can to prevent others joining them. A shift to the rhetoric of war, I think, signals the possibility of recruiting more people to their causes and I, for one, would certainly not want to see that happen. I do not want to see more people like Jane and Jenny Corteen die in a place like Bali, a place of recreation.We must use our intelligence to understand these matters. We must use our intelligence and all our diligence to find the perpetrators. We must actively wage campaigns against the people who would join these terrorists and argue persuasively for the values of our society. Generalising and including a great many people who should not be included in this war against terror will only add to the potency of the arguments of the terrorists, who must be marginalised, weeded out of our society and punished appropriately.21:29:008380Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—It is 12 October, around 11.15 p.m. Balinese time. Young holiday-makers are relaxing and enjoying themselves. They have headed to Bali in search of a good time. Innocence prevails. Friendships are made. Inhibitions are vanquished to another time, another place. Kuta Beach is a place of good times and great people. Then, within a split second, a dream holiday becomes more than a nightmare. It is an apocalyptical scene of carnage and destruction, the like of which has never been seen before in our region. There are approximately 180 deaths, including 92 Australians, and many hundreds injured. Like all members of parliament, there are residents in my electorate of Paterson who have been greatly affected by the Bali bombings. Day after day we have seen the footage on TV and the pictures in the newspapers that have shown the tremendous heartache that families right across the country are feeling. It breaks your heart to hear the stories of survivors who have stayed on after the bombings to look for missing friends or family. And it breaks your heart to see families waiting in agony to hear even the smallest piece of information. They hang on in hope. Many people have lost friends, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and it is a loss that our whole nation is feeling. It is one of the worst tragedies that our nation has ever witnessed and it has taken the lives of so many of our fine young people. It is these people who were having the time of their lives in Bali. We have heard so many stories of families and friends staying in local resorts on post-season football celebrations or on surfing holidays. My heart and the prayers of the people of Paterson go out to each and every one of these families who have been personally affected by this tragedy. Bali has a special place in the hearts of many Australians. So many people travel there because of the beautiful beaches and because it is a place to relax, and many make it an annual event. But it is the Balinese people that leave a lasting impression on most travellers through their warmth, sincerity and generosity. In particular, my heart goes out to my dear friends Garry and Deslie Shakespeare from Raymond Terrace in my electorate, for their daughter, Melody Kariarta, lives in Bali. Melody has lived in Bali for nine years and lives there with her husband and four children. She owns a restaurant outside Kuta known as `Full Moon', which is a very popular eating place for many of the travellers. On that fateful day, Melody's daughter, Oshar, had her 18th birthday party. It was a time when families should have been celebrating the whole night through. Melody took a friend to the airport in Bali, which delayed her return to Kuta by about an hour. When she came back from the airport, she was trying to find a car park space when the explosions took place. It may just have been this hour's delay that saved Melody's life and the members of her family. Deslie Shakespeare has told me how Melody and her family helped people from the start by volunteering at the hospital. Her son-in-law, Wayan Kariarta, started pulling bodies out of the wreckage—tourists from Australia and other nations as well as the local Balinese people who were critically injured and killed.What Deslie's family saw and lived through is something that I cannot describe in words. Fortunately, Deslie will be travelling to Bali soon to be with her family. I wish her and her family the very best during these very difficult times. As I speak, the Kariarta family are dining with the Governor-General and other people affected by the tragedy in Bali tonight. The doctors, the nurses, the volunteers and the Australian authorities who have assisted the injured, regardless of their nationality, have been doing a tremendous job in Bali.I congratulate all of the emergency services, the RAAF and the volunteers who reacted so quickly and have performed an amazing job under these very difficult circumstances. The stories of volunteers who do not have any medical training but who were just sitting and comforting the injured is just inspirational. Over time, more brave stories will come out of this tragedy involving not only Australians but Balinese people and those of other nationalities. How this tragedy will affect Bali, its people and its economy is something that will only unfold over time. Not only is this a tragedy for the Australian families who have lost loved ones but I recognise it is also a tragedy for the Balinese people. The Australian government and authorities are working with their Indonesian counterparts to ensure that they find and bring to justice as quickly as possible those responsible for this terrible act. The horrible loss of life reinforces the absolute necessity of taking robust action to eliminate the threat that confronts us all. Nations must work together to stamp out terrorism, which threatens the lives of innocent people. In the wake of the events in Bali the government has announced a review of both the adequacy of domestic terrorism legislation and our counter-terrorism capacity. While both were recently reviewed, the terrorist attack in Bali makes another review a matter of responsibility to all Australians. It would be irresponsible of the government not to do everything within its power to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. We must make sure that we are in the best position possible to identify and punish those responsible for the terrorist acts and to foil those planning terrorist acts.The government is committed to doing everything it can to bring those responsible for this despicable act to justice. Cooperation between the Australian and Indonesian governments is essential in pursuit of those responsible for the unprovoked, indiscriminate slaughter of human life. We must and will direct all available resources, including the might of the law, to protecting our community and working to ensure that those responsible for threatening our security are brought to justice, and we will do so as swiftly as possible.Finally, I say how proud I am of our Prime Minister, John Howard; Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson; and Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean, who went to Bali to help comfort the victims and their families. What impressed me most is that they were prepared to stay there and listen to the stories and comfort people until they were no longer needed. That is the hallmark of a leader and a statesman. Our Prime Minister has done everything he can, everything within his power, to make it just a little bit easier for these people. Unfortunately, time is the only thing that will help heal these wounds. All I say in conclusion is may those who have been lost to us rest in peace with God.21:37:008382Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—It is very hard for us, not having been part of that horror, to imagine the horror which was visited on all those who suffered as a result of the terrorist attacks in Bali last week. We saw the photographs of the young people cavorting in the pool just hours before some of them were killed—young lives which were snuffed out and destroyed well before their time in circumstances where they were completely innocent and completely oblivious as to what was to happen to them. We also know of so many people who are now suffering hideous injuries and have to try to rebuild their lives in circumstances where they have gone through extreme pain and suffered over an extended period of time.We are aware of the courage and the heroism of people who risked their own lives to save others and put the welfare of others before their own. The Bali bombing is an event which has brought out the worst in human nature but at the same time it has brought out the best in human nature, and those of us in the comfortable circumstances that we are in can only stand in awe and marvel at the courage of those who risked their own lives to save others. I do not know them. I do know of Jason McCartney, as so many Melbourne people do, as a Kangaroos footballer. That story of his heroism in putting the welfare of others before his own and prejudicing his own health in the process is an interesting thing. It shows that people have all sorts of sides to their characters and that tragic circumstances can bring out real heroism in people in the way that the Bali terrorism has done.On behalf of the people of the electorate of Wills, I want to convey our solidarity, our sympathy and our condolences to the families and friends of those who were killed and injured in the Bali bombing. In this time of profound anguish and grief, where the world must seem surreal to those who live on, I want them to know that the hearts of the people of Wills are with them. I also wish to convey our appreciation of the efforts of the medical staff and the volunteers. They do colossal work in unimaginably difficult and trying circumstances. I also want to mention the people who are sifting the remains to identify bodies. This is gruesome and horrible work, and we are all very much in their debt.After the terrorist attacks of 11 September in New York on the World Trade Centre, I issued on behalf of the people of Wills and indeed to the people of Wills a call for tolerance and respect for everybody, no matter what their religion or racial background. I pointed out that Australia is a country which is founded on tolerance—it is really our chief virtue—and we have been a successful model of tolerance and indeed a beacon to the rest of the world. There are so many places around the world where people from different religious backgrounds and different racial backgrounds have been unable to live successfully together. We have done that successfully in this country. I believed then, and still believe, that tolerance has served this country well and that we should stick with tolerance.I have many Islamic people in my electorate. They are horrified and appalled by this crime. They identify as Australians and feel for the plight of those who suffered as a result of the bombing. Their world has become less safe as a result of this, in the same way as the world of the rest of us has become less safe as a result of this. I have quite a strong connection with the Turkish Muslim community in my electorate. They understand the separation between church and state very well. They have been left a fine legacy by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. They understand that religion is the sphere of the private—it should be the sphere of the private—and that matters of law and politics, which are the sphere of the public, are not an appropriate place for religion. I repeat the call for tolerance that I made last time. Australia remains a terrific place in which to live and we must not let any of these sorts of things prejudice or undermine that. It would give the terrorists a real victory if that were to happen. I also encourage moderate Islamic organisations to denounce the extremists and to make clear, as we must all make clear, that there is no place for religious fanaticism or fundamentalism of whatever stripe—whether it is Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Protestant or Catholic. We must denounce and reject the kind of fundamentalism or fanaticism that says it is okay to kill and maim in the pursuit of some religious goal.I also want to express in the strongest possible terms my opposition to the view that I occasionally hear around the place that in some respect Australians might have had it coming to them in terms of the political positions that we have adopted or our role in the war on terrorism. There was, and has been, an element of this post-September 11—this kind of idea that the United States might have had it coming to them because of some of their international policies. There is a suggestion that Australia might have had this coming to us because of some of our international political positions. This is outrageous. Terrorists alone are responsible for these outrages, and the implication that this act might in some respect be justified is absolute nonsense. Indeed, it is my view that the only thing which some of these terrorists— the likes of Osama bin Laden—understand is strength and a willingness to combat that, and the idea that if we are polite to terrorists we might avoid problems for ourselves is nonsense. The only way we can proceed is to continue to prosecute the war on terrorism and make it clear that in no sense are we prepared to accept this kind of behaviour or back away from it.I do make the point that I think that some of the things that have been said about Iraq may not be relevant to the war on terrorism. From my own point of view, the link has not been satisfactorily made out between the Iraqi leadership and al-Qaeda—the work of Osama bin Laden—and international terrorism generally. If people want take that war on terrorism into Iraq, they need to produce more and better evidence than has been produced to date.In conclusion, we must all join—indeed, we have all joined—together at what is a very difficult moment in this nation's history to support and comfort and grieve alongside those who have suffered and who have lost loved ones. As I said at the outset, my heart goes out to them, and we wish them as speedy a recovery as can be possibly achieved in these circumstances.21:47:008384Ley, Sussan, MPMs LEY00AMNFarrerLP10—I rise tonight to support the Prime Minister's motion condemning the recent acts of violence in Bali. Last Sunday I attended a service for the national day of mourning in my hometown of Albury, a town that has lost a lovely young woman, Andrea Hore, who is missing in that place. My heart goes out to Andrea's family, her workmates and her friends. This and other services conducted throughout the day were an opportunity for all of us to express our sorrow, to offer our deep sympathy to families of the victims and to feel part of a strong and determined nation of Australians who will not bow down to terrorism.I know I join with all of the people of Farrer, whom I represent here in parliament, in a common bond of fellowship as we condemn this cruel and callous taking of life. We also feel great pride in the acts of selflessness and bravery and the sheer hard work and commitment shown by survivors, medical personnel, other tourists, our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Federal Police. While the loss of Australian life was tragic enough, we also recognise the loss of citizens of other countries as well as the local Balinese people, none of whom deserved this wicked and monstrous act.People have naturally reacted with horror and disbelief. Those of us who grew up in a world largely untouched by such events have suddenly realised that, more than ever before, the world is a village—closer than we thought and less safe than we thought. I think it is important to remember, at a time when we feel so threatened, that in many respects we have been here before. Australia has been through two world wars; in fact, World War II came to our shores 60 years ago this year and we prevailed against an unthinkable horror. Our parents' generation and their parents' generation knew that unthinkable horror, lived with it daily and found the strength to carry on. As we search for inspiration to guide us through this difficult time, there is no better place to find it than in the examples of Australian men and women who defended this country from aggression and built it back up after the fighting was over.During the national day of mourning service we heard words of inspiration and prayer from Mother Theresa, part of which read:What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight; Build anyway.There is no doubt that on the night of Saturday, 12 October, a great deal was destroyed that had taken many lifetimes to build. Young people's lives were being built as they took their place in the world; relationships were being built between partners, between parents, between families; the close and friendly relationship between Australia and Indonesia, especially Bali, which has existed over such a long period was being built upon all the time. With these barbaric bombings, all of this was destroyed overnight.As we try to make sense of the senseless and try to come to terms with a world that seems broken and divided as never before, these words of Mother Theresa which I have mentioned are important: What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight; Build anyway.After our period of loss and mourning we will, in true Australian spirit, gather our confidence, our free spirit and our bright and happy souls and build again. Those of us who struggle with the grief that we feel should remember that Alexander Pushkin said:As long as there is one heart on earth where I still live, my memory will not die ...The people lost and killed in Bali will go on living in the hearts of all Australians. Love is stronger than death and, for those who love, time is an eternity.What can be said about terrorism and violence? Those who use it reject the basic machinery of civilisation. Those who practise terrorism—in this case, mass murder—seek to make civilisation unworkable. It has been said that there is only one step from fanaticism to barbarism. The extremists who have committed these crimes have taken that step and they must be stopped from taking it again. In Enemies of Society, Paul Johnson said:The virtue we should cherish most is the courage to resist violence, especially if this involves flying in the face of public opinion which, in its fear and in its anxiety for peace, is willing to appease the violators. Above all, violence should never be allowed to pay, or be seen to pay ...As we strengthen our determination to fight evil and terror, it is important that we in no way see this as a crime perpetrated by Islam. In common with Christianity and other faiths, Muslims regard human life as a gift from God. There are a large number of Muslims in Indonesia, indeed all over the world, but very few are extremists. The Prophet, whom the Muslim world follows, never resorted to or approved of the murder of innocent people. It is necessary that we take up the challenge to stare down all perpetrators of violence, accepting that the only perspective they have is terror. Although they may claim to be acting in the name of a religious faith, they are not. In fact, Muslims are ordered to be respectful of other faiths. Islam is a religion that teaches its followers that they must let other religions be, as long as those other religions are living peacefully in their midst. Terrorists who consider themselves martyrs to a wonderful Islamic cause are deceiving themselves and they offend their own faith just as much as they offend other faiths.Soon we will be concentrating on the detail of the defence and foreign policy issues that this event presents us with—on our review of counterterrorist measures and on security at home and abroad. After our first concern for the victims and their families, this government is prepared and getting on with all these things. But now is a time to reflect, to grieve, to feel our common sorrow and our common humanity, as we prepare for the special interdenominational memorial service which is to be held in Canberra this Thursday for the families whose hearts are breaking. We must cherish and remember the ones who have been lost, as we do whatever we can to offer whatever comfort we can. In remembering our fine young Australians, I read this poem by Rupert Brooke for them:These hearts were woven of human joys and cares,Washed marvellously with sorrow, swift to mirth.The years had given them kindness. Dawn was theirs,And sunset, and the colours of the earth.These had seen movement, and heard music; knownSlumber and waking; loved; gone proudly friended;Felt the quick stir of wonder; sat alone;Touched flowers and furs and cheeks. All this is ended.There are waters blown by changing winds to laughterAnd lit by the rich skies, all day. And after,Frost, with a gesture, stays the waves that danceAnd wandering loveliness. He leaves a whiteUnbroken glory, a gathered radiance,A width, a shining peace, under the night.21:54:008386Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—We were all shocked and dazed by the terrible explosions that occurred in Bali on the night of Saturday, 12 October. The stories that came out of the grief and heroism and just sheer guts and determination make one very proud but terribly sad about the human cost of this tragedy to our country and to the people of Indonesia, including those of Bali. We are not used to events of this kind occurring so close to us. We are not prepared for knowing what it is like to survive so terrible an event as this. It brings home only too clearly what American families went through on 11 September last year.I give my heartfelt condolences to all those who have lost loved ones and still have family members missing. It is a hard time, a terrible time. All those in my electorate of Lyons are thinking of those people. I was able to speak a few words last Sunday at Oaklands, a town in the heart of my electorate of Lyons in Tasmania. Many people of that town and those visiting for the day wore sprigs of wattle for our day of mourning. Many people of that region observed that minute of silence. I am sure that all members of my electorate offer their sympathies to the many families throughout Australia that suffered loss.In the days and months that follow, we will hear many stories about acts of heroism. It was incredible to hear that many people were saved because they had a mate or a friend still there in better circumstances than they were. They pulled people out. They were able to get them to help. They continued to assist their friends. This was one thing that kept coming out of the reports on this great tragedy.We must not forget the people who have survived this terrible ordeal. We, as a community, must help them return to their normal lives where that is possible. The hardest part of any tragedy is that those who survive have to pick up the pieces of their lives. After a few months the public can forget, but the impact of this ordeal on many of the injured will endure for their lifetime and we must be big enough to remember them in 10 years time. I hope some of the ideas that are presently being passed around—particularly the idea of a hospital as a memorial—can gain some credence and become reality. I hope that, as soon as we can, we will start planning so that we can help those who survived to get back into good health. This will be Australia's real challenge. It will be a challenge to assist those people in a proper manner.I remember seeing a new skin graft process by a Perth hospital. The person's own cells are sprayed on. It is a revolutionary process that certainly breaks down and stops a lot of scarring in burn victims. It is a very major thing. Those people have worked extremely hard and people have benefited from their research and surgical skills. I pay tribute to them. I hope that process will be more available to the world in the future.Our thanks must go to those who helped in the care and search for survivors, those who identified those lost in this tragedy, those who worked in the hospitals in Bali and those who did what they could to help families search for their own. These people showed what it means to be Australian and be part of our nation's family. We are as one always in these times.I must also mention the sadness I feel for the Balinese. They have suffered as much as we have; their people have died too. Along with the people they lost, many of their jobs and means of existence will also disappear. Bali is a magnificently beautiful place with a different approach to life from many other areas in Indonesia. The shock to their culture and existence must be equal to, if not more than, the shock to ours in this country. To the people of Bali, I offer my condolences and concern, and hope that in some way Australia and Bali can be more strongly linked after this tragedy.We need to remember our police presence and our intelligence officers that are in the field up there at the present time trying to find the perpetrators of the attack. The work that they are doing hopefully will come to some fruition in the future. I am sure that all Australians will be giving them their best endeavours as well.We all remember other tragedies in Australia. When the Bali bombings happened, I remembered Port Arthur in my own electorate. I am sure that the member opposite, Mr Nairn, remembers when the tragedy occurred at Thredbo in his electorate. I remember him rising to speak in the House and trying to bring those things together, as I did for my own electorate. They are very heart-wrenching events and we all who are close to them then realise the human misery that it causes: the loss of hope and dreams for many families.We need to concentrate on the future; we need to endeavour to resolve this and to find those who perpetrated it. We are never going to be able, in our present world, to take things lightly for many years. We will need to be on guard. There are people who are determined to impose their causes and beliefs on the rest of the world, and we will certainly need to be very strong and protect our way of life against that. As a parent, I feel like all other parents who have children who travel and spend time in other parts of the world. It is a very frightening time in the sense that you take on within yourself a certain amount of fear and you need to overcome that at times like these.I wish to pass on special thanks to all the Qantas airline people who were involved in bringing people home from Bali. I also want to thank our defence forces, which in recent times have been called upon by our country to do extraordinary work, and they always perform to a very high level. They set their benchmarks high and when we call upon them they seem to more than meet those benchmarks. I have great respect for them and I thank them for all the work that they have done.The other day during the welcome of the new German ambassador with the German-Australian Parliamentary Friendship, the German ambassador mentioned that Australia, without having been asked, had helped bring back to Australia 10 German nationals who needed assistance. He was very grateful and praised us as a country for always being willing to assist friends and people from other nations. It was a great tribute to receive, and I mention it now so that others can share it.We have all suffered, and I can only once again pass on my deepest condolences and sympathies to all those who have lost friends and families in this tragedy.22:05:008387Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister10—At this stage I am not aware of any victims from my electorate of Lindsay. However, I have no doubt that some of my constituents have experienced the loss of someone close, someone they knew, someone they had been to school with, someone young. I think having to bury a child is every parent's nightmare. In the normal course of things, parents expect to pass away before their children. I think the hardest thing anyone would have to do would be to deal with the loss of someone so young in whom you have invested so much and for whom you had such great hopes. That was my immediate reaction on hearing the news of these incomprehensible attacks on young Australians in a holiday spot like Bali.I felt like tucking my family close around me on Fortress Australia, keeping them close to me and not letting them off this continent—`I won't let them grow up; I'll keep them safe from the bad man'. Yet I know in my heart of hearts my children will grow up to be just like me—they will leave school, leave university and want to see the world. They will save their pennies and get some very cheap fare off this great continent and they will go a long way and for a long time. There are very many young Australians travelling and seeing the world for six months or up to two years. It is just such a long way, and we know that when we come back from travelling the world and we create our lives in what is the best country in the world—we have seen the world and we know this to be true—it will be a long time before we get off these shores again. My husband is going to China next week, and I am nervous about that. Again, I want to hold him close and say, `Don't go. Stay close to me; stay safe.' There are conflicting emotions. Do we build Fortress Australia? Do we isolate ourselves and think that we can somehow protect our children, or do we go forth into the world and try to make the world a safer place? Do we extend our compassion and our understanding to those in Bali who have also lost their loved ones? In a time of national tragedy when we are mourning our own Australians, are we capable of understanding their devastating loss? What about those workers in the Sari bar who were the sole breadwinners of a Balinese family? How is that family going to cope in a nation that does not provide social security? It does not even provide the hospital care and health care that we take for granted in a developed nation. This happened in a developing nation. I do know the situation quite accurately from the three years I lived in Malaysia with the RAAF. I rode a motorbike. I was young; I was silly; I was six foot tall and bulletproof—and nothing was going to happen. But I always remember telling my mates, `If anything does happen—if I have a motorbike accident—will you please just fill me with pethidine and get me on a Hercules back to Darwin and let them deal with me there. Do not send me to a hospital in a developing world.' I suppose the main fear was infection. You could have the most basic of injuries but things just went horribly wrong. I remember a story in the media of a plastic surgeon who happened to be in Bali and went to offer services in the hospital, and there was just nothing there for him to do anything with. He could not even apply any of his skills or any of his training because there was not even any basic equipment in the hospital. I know the Prime Minister is thinking of a permanent Australian memorial in Bali in terms of a fully equipped hospital and maybe some sort of training scheme with an exchange system, where some of the Indonesian personnel can be trained up in terms of medical standards and they can be given some comfort so that, if people are injured, there is medicine available and a bit more than the very basic care that was available.To that end, I do have to commend the wonderful effort of the RAAF personnel who got the injured back home to Australia within 48 hours of the event. I remember I trained in the RAAF for those types of events, and we moved our equipment and personnel around. I have done the trip from Richmond to Darwin and from Darwin to Penang on the rattly old Herc. It is an incredibly boring trip, sitting in the back of a darkened cargo compartment with only tiny basic lights. You cannot see; there are no windows to look out. I can just imagine what the scene would have been like on those flights coming home.I send my sincere congratulations on a job well done to the RAAF medical and other personnel who were involved in that evacuation. I have trained with our medical teams and been on exercises with them, and they certainly know the drill. It is very comforting to know that, with little notice, they are able to gear up and deliver for Australia when the chips are down. I commend them for that. A number of people in my electorate would have been involved in that evacuation.I commend the attitude of the Australians who were injured, when they went back into the Sari bar to look for their mates. That mateship is something we have known in the past; it is something that is strong enough to withstand attacks such as this. This week we saw the anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein. More than 2,694 Australians were killed and wounded in one of the most decisive, strategic and psychological battles of the war. In that war there were young men in the prime of their lives. I have a quote from Jean Parry, a nurse of the 2nd AIF. She said of the wounded:Oh, the boys were wonderful. The thing that I remember most about the boys is that they weren't thinking of themselves. They'd come into the hospital badly injured—their main concern was their mates and wanting to know what happened to them.She could have been talking about the injured in the crowded clinics of Bali on the night of that tragic terrorist attack.I think caution is now needed in the world that we live in. I would like to think that my children will be able to travel the world freely. I would like to think that they will have the experiences of backpacking through South America, South-East Asia and Europe that I did. I would like to think that they would then be able to make it home to Australia safely. At this stage, I do not have that comfort.I am terribly concerned for young Australians travelling overseas and I really hope that we come through this as a nation. I hope that we come through it with the respect, tolerance, understanding and compassion that mark us as a Western nation. The fact that we are Western seems to have made us a target. We are free and democratic, and we tolerate views that are different views from ours—and there is no aggression around that. Yet, somehow, we are targeted for being Western—that is all you can put it down to. I do not think I would like my kids to grow up in anything other than a democratic and free society.It is a troubling time. My heart goes out to all those who have lost someone or are waiting for results and to people who have been injured. I do not think there is a more horrific injury than extensive burns. I hope and pray for their recovery and I know that all of our medical personnel, right across the hospitals of Australia involved with the victims from this tragedy, will be working with them. As the Prime Minister said, they have 19 million mates all wishing them the very best.22:15:008389O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I rise in the House to offer my condolences to the relatives and friends who have lost loved ones in the terrorist attack in Bali. It is a tragedy of immense proportions and our hearts go out to our fellow Australians who have had to cope with the grief and uncertainty that has no doubt disrupted and dominated their lives since October 12.It is hard to comprehend or understand how such an act of senseless barbarity and evil could be contemplated and carried out in such a ruthless and uncaring manner. Innocent Australians of varying ages on holidays in a popular destination frequented by many Australians have become the victims of what can only be described as a senseless, despicable and cowardly act of evil.Last Sunday, I attended an ecumenical service at St Mary's Cathedral in Geelong, where the community came together as part of the national day of mourning to offer its support to Geelong families directly affected by this tragedy. The cathedral was packed with people determined to express their support to the Lee and Cartwright families in their hour of sorrow. The Lee family, it would appear, have lost three members of their family in this tragedy. May I convey to those families on behalf of the electors of Corio our strongest expression of support for them at this time of great sorrow and uncertainty in their lives.The service was a beautiful one and our thanks go to Father Kevin Dylan and his co-celebrants from other faiths for the compassionate and sensitive remembrance and tribute to the Australians who are not coming home to their loved ones.One cannot help but be moved by the extraordinary courage and selflessness demonstrated by many people in the wake of the terrible explosions that have shattered and ended many Australian lives. I pay tribute in this House to members of the Geelong Football Club, particularly to senior team member Tim `Bluey' McGrath, for their care and compassion for others following the blast. We know of the terrible tragedy that befell other sporting clubs on that day and, as we in Geelong have a very young football side, we literally shudder and go cold at the thought of the fate that might have befallen many of them as they holidayed at Kuta Beach in Bali. Thankfully, they escaped serious injury, and we honour the part they played in preparing bandages and assisting the wounded. We are grateful for Tim McGrath's presence of mind in an organisational sense and the great wisdom he displayed following the attack.I have been heartened by the extraordinary contributions made by many people as we responded as a nation to this tragedy. It is that contribution that lifts our spirits and steels our resolve to bring the perpetrators to justice. I mention here the surgeons and nurses, the hospital workers, the police and emergency service personnel, the aid agencies, the public servants who provided such strong support and information to the government of the day and information to the families affected by this tragedy, and the transport and travel personnel. All have played their part in delivering compassionate support in the aftermath of the attack. The fibre of the nation has been tested in the most difficult circumstance, and ordinary Australians have done quite extraordinary things to help their fellow countrymen and to support those in greatest need.At this time of national mourning, we ought to remember also the families of the people of many other nationalities who perished on that day, particularly the Balinese. I have been to Bali on several occasions—once with my son Adam, and the other as part of a parliamentary delegation in 1994. I was not only struck by the beauty of the island but also by the beautiful culture and the friendliness of the people. They possess a great love of life, and the suffering that has been visited upon them as a result of this senseless act of terrorism is quite beyond comprehension.Many have said that Australia lost its innocence on 12 October. As a nation, we lost it long before that date. The callous attack on 12 October reminds us in a poignant way that we now live in even greater uncertain times. Living with uncertainty is nothing new to many of us. We were raised under the threat of nuclear war and the annihilation of our civilisation. We have learned to live with that threat. We have borne that burden during the tender years of our upbringing, just as our children must now bear the uncertainty we have introduced into their lives. We cannot now escape the responsibility placed upon us all to free the world from the shadow of terror that has now crept over their lives.We have all felt enormous anger at the scenes of death and great suffering that have filled our screens as the events unfolded and were reported by the media. If we are going to construct a world free of violence, death and uncertainty, at some time we are going to have to put some of those feelings aside and commit ourselves in a very real way to the cause of peace for our children's sake. As a free and democratic nation, we have a special responsibility in the affairs of the world and the relationships that are conducted between nations.Australia occupies a special place as a nation that enjoys a very high standard of living and a civility in its culture which at times is tested but in the main provides us with security and the ability to go about our daily lives free of the terror and the circumstances that befall many people in other parts of the world. Because of that special responsibility, we must ensure that we are an agent for peace in the international arena. Those who make the wars never really have to fight them. That has been an adage that I have lived with and that my father lived with. The previous speaker spoke of the battle of El Alamein. Our family was intimately involved in that particular struggle, but now we face a struggle of a different kind. It challenges us all to open our minds to the creative ways that we must now employ to ensure that we construct a peaceful world.I went to Monash University. Many of us would have come through our university years and viewed the rather interesting graffiti that often adorned the walls of universities. I can recall one particular peace of graffiti which always stuck in my mind: `War is good business. Invest your sons now.' It had quite a profound impact upon me and I dedicated myself at that time to ensuring that Australians never had to fight in another war. Sadly, that has not been the case. We do not stop trying to construct a world where our children can go about their daily lives in peace and without uncertainty. That places great responsibilities on us here in this parliament to ensure that the actions that we take, in government and in opposition, are focused on the pursuit of peace and not the pursuit of war.In conclusion, let me extend once again my deepest sympathies to all the families, particularly those in Geelong, who have been affected by this terrible tragedy. We will bring the perpetrators to justice one way or another. When justice is done, the enormous task of rebuilding our lives will continue and the enormous task of ridding the world of the uncertainty that has been created by events of this type will really have to proceed in earnest. The nation will grow through this experience. It will grow stronger through this experience. This experience will not shatter the free and democratic society that we have come to enjoy and love. We will do everything in our power in this parliament and in the Australian community to secure a life free from uncertainty and free from death and destruction for our children.22:26:008391Smith, Anthony, MPMr ANTHONY SMITH00APGCaseyLP10—In supporting the Prime Minister's resolution at this late stage in the debate, I want to place on record, as so many members have done so eloquently and compassionately before me, my outrage and horror at the terrorist bombings in Bali that have killed and injured so many of our fellow countrymen and women. I also wish to offer my deepest condolences to the families of the deceased and best wishes to those recovering in hospital and at home. The events of 11 days ago were horrific in our nation's history. We do not yet know all the facts or all the details, but we know enough to appreciate just what a calculated and murderous act the bombings were. We know that the acts were not the random acts of a misguided individual; rather, they were premeditated acts by a group of terrorists who picked their target and planned to maximise death and destruction. We know enough to know that there were two bombs, designed to maximise the injury toll. We know that the perpetrators deliberately chose a venue in the location of the Sari Club, where they knew many Australians and other Westerners were concentrated. It was an attack designed to wreak horror on those on holiday in a place of happiness. As many speakers in this debate, from the Prime Minister down, have laid out so articulately, these attacks mark something of a turning point for Australia. They will result in a change of attitudes in Australian society and about Australia and the sort of country we are. First and foremost, they have fundamentally altered the historic assumption that Australia's isolation in a global sense guarantees safety from the horrors of other parts of the world, whether Europe, the Middle East or America. In the wake of September 11, so many said that the ease of the attacks on New York and Washington illustrated how the world had changed and become a more dangerous place. While many people said that these sorts of attacks could happen here and that they could happen anywhere, I do not think that many Australians in their heart of hearts thought that that was realistically a possibility. While they said that this could happen, I did not think that they really thought that it would happen here.While this tragedy has not happened in Australia, it is as close as it can be—in Bali, in our backyard. What happened will alter the attitude of Australians. We will not go back to where we were before last Saturday, 12 October 2002. It is important that we understand as a nation just what is at stake in the war against terror. As many commentators and speakers in this debate have said, we lost something last Saturday in terms of innocence. The bombings illustrate in a very devastating way that no-one is immune from the war on terror. The terrorists who are perpetrating this war are not fighting nations. The attitude of the extremists who are fighting is motivated not by a desire to destroy a particular nation but rather by a desire to destroy a lifestyle, a culture, a set of values and a way of life—that is, Western democracy. It is not the flag of a nation or a group of nations that they oppose and want to destroy. It is the way of life of those nations and the way we live our lives. It is the freedom which we take for granted that they seek to destroy in a mad quest of extremism. In saying that, we must recognise that no Western nation can ignore those who seek to destroy our way of life, and every Western nation must fully be part of the war on terror because ignoring the terrorists will not make them go away. Not confronting the terrorists will not make them go away; it will actually make them grow stronger and wreak more damage and destruction in the future—possibly even more than we saw last Saturday in Bali and a year ago in the United States.In the remaining time available, I will briefly touch on a couple of aspects of the strength of the Australian community and the response throughout the Australian community to this tragedy. We have heard so much about the wonderful response from the Department of Defence, the emergency services and the many people on the ground in Bali, and I echo that their magnificent contribution has once again shown how, in times of trial, Australians can really pull together. I also want to pay tribute to the wonderful spirit of the Australian community in the suburbs and the cities across our country. Our people have rallied together magnificently in a difficult time.I was fortunate enough to attend a church service on Sunday, as many members would also have done. I attended the Mount Evelyn Christian Fellowship. It is a church that has a great deal to do with Indonesia. They have worked so hard for such a long period of time to provide aid and support for people in need in some of the outer provinces. They know only too well the difficulties that have been present in Indonesia with regard to Islamic extremism. On Sunday, hundreds of people turned up wearing their wattle to mourn the loss of life of those killed in Bali and to pray for those who are still fighting for their lives in hospitals across Australia. I mention this not because it is an unusual story but rather because it is very much the story of Australia last Sunday: a story of Australians joining together as one, to mourn together, to rally together for the best of what our nation stands for.Like so many others around the nation, the people of Mount Evelyn Christian Fellowship have compassionate hearts and a commitment to helping others. Pastor Alan Meyer and all those involved in the church want to see an end to terrorism, and they want to see people live in peace and safety. Their tangible commitment has resulted in land being purchased to provide homes and a livelihood for those who have already suffered previous acts of terror and religious extremism. Medical training is also being provided, again to help those suffering needlessly. It will be the hard work and commitment of groups like this, as well as the commitment and hard work of leaders, nations and world bodies, that will be sorely needed in the future to secure better prospects for people in Indonesia and right throughout our region.Debate (on motion by Mr Nairn) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 10.34 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing8391The following answers to questions were circulated:8391(Question No. 328)3288391Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 May 2002:(1) How many kilometres of the Hume Highway between Sydney and Albury are not duplicated and remain single carriageway.(2) What are the sections referred to in part (1).(3) What is the cost of duplicating each section.(4) What is the cost of completing the full duplication as one project.(5) How many road accidents and fatalities have occurred in each section of the highway referred to in part (1) in each of the past five years.(6) Are there any projects underway or plans for completing the outstanding duplication works over the next five years; if so, what are the projects and where and when will they be undertaken.8391Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) advised that approximately 106km of the Hume Highway between Sydney and Albury remains unduplicated.(2) The unduplicated sections of the Hume Highway comprise: Coolac 11kmSheahan Bridge 1kmSturt Highway to Bells Road 82kmBells Road to McDonald Road 12km(3) The RTA has advised that the cost of these works is currently estimated as follows: $mNorth of the Sturt Highway junctionCoolac bypass94.5 Sheahan Bridge duplication29 Sturt Highway junction to Albury451The cost of upgrading from Bells Road to McDonald Road is not shown, as this forms part of the Albury external bypass project.(4) To date, only limited planning has occurred along some sections of the route and as a result the cost of duplicating the above sections of the Hume Highway may change when more detailed route planning is undertaken. It is uncertain whether these duplication works could readily be undertaken as one project and, if so, whether the same costs would apply. (5) Road traffic accidents are reported by local government area only. Accidents and fatalities along the Hume Highway from Sydney (Campbelltown) to Albury for each of the past 5 years to 2000 (the latest data available) follow: 19961997199819992000TAFTAFTAFTAFTAFWollondilly221360391412340Wingecarribee584723681621830Mulwaree601646640786808Goulburn50110408051Gunning200191240210290Yass351473405484321Harden1409011310170Gundagai282270331380393Wagga311263262332331Holbrook200241264282331Hume100100100100160TA = Total Accidents F = Fatalities(6) The Federal Government is committed to duplication of the Hume Highway in line with overall traffic needs, available funds and competing priorities. In 2001/02, the Federal Government made funding provision for the RTA to further investigate the needs of the southern Hume Highway. In May 2002, the RTA submitted a proposal for the study, which is expected to cost around $150,000. The 2002/03 Budget makes provision of $100,000 to facilitate this work. At this stage a report is expected in the first half of 2003. Planning is in progress for a dual carriageway bypass of Coolac and for duplication of the Sheahan Bridge at South Gundagai. The 2002/03 Budget makes provision of $4 million for preconstruction activities at Coolac. 8391(Question No. 666)6668391Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:Further to the reply to part (2) of question No. 438, will he provide details of the statistics referred to in the question.8391Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:All Sydney Airport's operational statistics since May 1998 are available on the Airservices Australia internet site at:http://www.airservices.gov.au/mediainfo/facts&stats/sydney/sydneyairport.htm8391(Question No. 668)6688391Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Further to the answer to part (3) of question No. 402, has Bankstown Airport now been sold; if so when and to whom; if not, who is the current owner of Bankstown Airport.(2) If Bankstown Airport has been sold, what is now the date prescribed in the Airports Act 1996 Guidelines upon which the owner of Bankstown Airport is required to draft and table its Master Plan.(3) To whom is the Master Plan to be furnished a copy.(4) Is the Master Plan a public document; if not, why not.(5) Further to the answers to parts (4) and (5) of question No. 402, were the number of aircraft movements a material factor in the sale of (a) Bankstown Airport and (b) Sydney Airport; if so, what commercial, environmental and safety issues does he understand to be relevant factors when considering the sale of Sydney Airport and Bankstown Airport.(6) In light of his answers to parts (4) and (5) of question No. 402, can he explain upon what basis Sydney Airport was sold when, citing his answer to part (3) of question No. 402, the projected figures are not available.(7) Was Sydney Airport sold without the availability of the data described in part (3) of question No. 402.(8) Is he able to say what financial, environmental and safety impacts the forecast aircraft traffic increase on Bankstown Airport will have flowing from the decision to sell Sydney Airport.8391Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. Bankstown Airport is currently leased on a long-term basis from the Commonwealth to Bankstown Airport Limited, a fully Commonwealth owned company.(2) I refer the honourable member to answer (1) above, and to my reply to part (3) of Question 402.(3) and (4) Under the Airports Act 1996 the airport lessee is required to make the draft master plan available for public comment for 90 days prior to submission to the Minister. In addition to consultation requirements set out in the Act for the preparation of a master plan, the airport lessee must make copies of the final master plan available to the public after the Minister has approved it. (5) (a) See answer (1) above. (b) Airport movement statistics for Bankstown Airport were available to prospective buyers for Sydney Airport.(6) It was a matter for the prospective buyers for Sydney Airport to take appropriate account of the Government's position regarding the possible future development of Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport.(7) Yes.(8) These matters will be addressed in the development of any specific proposal to upgrade facilities and operational aspects of Bankstown Airport.8391(Question No. 677)6778391Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Do the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997 currently allow mobile telephone low impact facilities to be installed without the need for (a) a Local Council Development Application and (b) written notification from the communications carrier to local residents and businesses potentially affected by such installations, with the exception of the owner and occupier of the property where such facilities are installed.(2) Under the code, is the level of electromagnetic radiation emissions not a valid ground for an objection to the location of a mobile telephone low impact facility even when a person may believe that the proposed location would result in harmful exposure to such radiation; if so, why.(3) Is a new code being developed for mobile telephone low impact facilities; if so, when will it come into force; if not, why not.(4) Will any new code require telecommunications carriers to consult more fully with local councils and the community, even when a development application is not required for a low impact facility; if so, how; if not, why not.(5) Will any new code require telecommunications carriers to notify all potentially-affected residents and businesses of a proposed installation of a mobile telephone low impact facility and allow them an opportunity to object to such an installation on health or environmental grounds; if so, how; if not, why not.8391McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Carriers seeking to install low-impact facilities are required to comply with the rules of conduct set out in Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997. The Code requires that carriers notify landholders and occupiers regarding the installation of low-impact facilities. However, it is not a requirement of the Act or the Code for carriers to request a Local Council Development Application or consult with neighbouring businesses and residents.(2) Yes. Carriers are currently required to comply with the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) mandatory limits for general public exposure to Radio Frequency EMR. The Government has rigorous standards making processes for all EMR emitting communications equipment, including mobile towers. The Australian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Agency develops these standards based on the best objective scientific information and advice available and in 2000 found that emissions from mobile phone base stations are on average thousands of times below the maximum permitted in strict international safety standards.(3) A new Telecommunications Code of Practice is not being developed. However, the Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF) has developed an Industry Code for the Deployment of Radiocommunications Infrastructure, including mobile phone network facilities which augments the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997. The Code was registered by the ACA on 10 October 2002 and it is expected to be fully operational by 10 April 2003. The Industry Code is binding on all carriers.(4) The Industry Code provides for a significant expansion of consultative practices required by carriers with affected community members including local councils, neighbouring residents, businesses and those in community sensitive locations. In the first instance, carriers will be required to notify affected communities of the consultation process, and resolve any issues of concern by direct negotiation. (5) The Industry Code extends the obligations on carriers, particularly in relation to the consideration of radiation exposure and community consultation, and requires carriers to notify potentially affected residents and businesses providing adequate time for consultation. Objections in relation to performance of any mandatory obligation, including compliance with the `precautionary approach' for the building and operation of radio-based telecommunications equipment requiring best practice processes for demonstrating compliance with relevant exposure limits, may be lodged through a complaint mechanism allowed for in the Code. Under the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997, carriers have additional notice requirements to the Environment Secretary who may determine that carriers may not engage in low-impact facility activities due to environmental issues.8391(Question No. 688)6888391Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Further to the report under section 24 of the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Collection) Act 2001, is $350 million estimated to be the cost of employee entitlements under the Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett group employees (SEESA); if not, what is the estimated full amount. (2) What are the remaining entitlements owing to Ansett workers, not including payments made or expected under SEESA. (3) Will the Government cease collecting the $10 levy on air passenger tickets once the cost of employee entitlements payable under SEESA has been recovered, if not, why not.(4) If funds collected from the levy exceed Government liabilities for employee entitlements, for what does the Government intend using those excess funds. (5) Within the Ansett group, to which companies have employee entitlements been paid and how many employees with each Ansett group company have received payment.(6) How many cents in the dollar is it expected that Ansett group creditors will receive from the Ansett Administrators.(7) Will the Government seek to recover from the air passenger levy, costs incurred by the Departments of Employment and Workplace Relations and Transport and Regional Services in the establishment of SEESA or the administration and collection of the ticket levy. (8) What (a) are the costs to date and (b) is the total estimated final cost of the costs incurred by the Departments referred to in part (7). (9) Have discussions been held with the Administrators about recovering from them the cost of employee entitlements paid by the Government through SEESA to Ansett group employees, if so, when were those discussions held and what was determined through those discussions, if not, why not. 8391Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Beyond those entitlements covered by the Government's SEESA scheme, the issue of any further entitlements of Ansett workers is a matter for the Administrators of the Ansett Group of companies. (3) Yes.(4) See Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Collection) Act 2001 s 23. The Government has indicated that any surplus monies will be returned with an emphasis on helping the tourism industry. (5) As at 6 September SEESA funds have been advanced to:- 12,169 Ansett mainline employees - 34 Showgroup employees - 549 Kendall employees - 14 Aeropelican employees; and - 100 former employees of the Hazelton group (on 6 September).(6) I would refer the Honourable Member to the Ansett Administrators Third Report to Creditors which canvasses this matter in detail. (7) Yes - as provided for under the Air Passenger Ticket levy (Collection) Act 2001.(8) Payments made to date for costs incurred by DoTARS and DEWR in connection with SEESA and the collection of the levy amount to $1.3 million. The final costs will be subject to the duration of the Ansett Administration including the timing of (a) further redundancies and (b) dividend payments - it is not possible to provide an estimate at this time.(9) Yes. The Commonwealth is a member of the Ansett Creditors Committee and receives regular updates through that forum. Information discussed in this forum is now publicly available in the Ansett Administrators Third Report to Creditors.8391(Question No. 698)6988391Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 19 August 2002:(1) Is it correct that the Air Traffic Control (ATC) at Essendon Airport is closed between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., and that Melbourne ATC is responsible for Essendon air traffic control during this time.(2) When, and why, was the decision taken to close Essendon Airport ATC between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.(3) Do pilots landing at, or taking off from, Essendon Airport between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. have to seek clearance from Melbourne Airport ATC; if so, what sort of communication takes place between pilots and ATC during landings and takeoffs at that time.(4) Are there any differences between the procedures to be followed by pilots using Essendon Airport when the Essendon ATC is, and is not, operating.8391Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Essendon Tower hours are:Monday to Friday 6.15am - 10.00pmSaturday 7.00am - 10.00pmSunday 8.00am - 10.00pmOutside tower hours, the Air Traffic Services for Essendon aerodrome are provided through the Melbourne Centre.(2) The overnight closure of Essendon was introduced in June 1993. The reason for the overnight closure was the low level of aircraft movements at night. (3) Yes. Outside tower hours, pilots establish communication with the Melbourne Centre whilst on the ground at Essendon to receive airways clearances and ATC instructions. (4) Yes. The differences in procedures outside tower hours relate primarily to communications and the selection of radio frequencies. 8391(Question No. 738)7388391Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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 division 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.8391McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes.(2) There are numerous funding programs administered within the Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio. Details and linkages to portfolio agencies are available on the Department's website: www.dcita.gov.au.(3) Yes.(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.8391(Question No. 783)7838391McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 20 August 2002:(1) How many funding applications recommended to the Minister by the relevant State advisory group under the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy have not been signed off by the Minister since February 2002.(2) Will the Minister inquire into the reasons why any recommended grant applications have not been signed off.(3) Will the Minister take urgent steps to ensure this matter is addressed so that community organizations are not left in a position of uncertainty as to whether their grant application has been successful.8391Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) There are no funding applications recommended to me under the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy that I have not signed off.(2) This question is not applicable.(3) This question is not applicable.8391(Question No. 791)7918391Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 August 2002:(1) Did he issue a Budget media statement saying that the Federal Government has made a commitment to spend $18 million on overtaking lanes on the Sturt Highway.(2) What sum of the $18 million has already been spent and on which projects has that sum been spent.(3) What sum was spent on the eastbound and westbound lanes near Kingston-on-Murray in 2001-2002.(4) What sum will be spent on the remaining 17 passing lanes, when will it be spent and where are the lanes located.(5) Following completion of these projects, how much of the Sturt Highway will not have dual carriageway or safe overtaking lanes and what is the cost of completing those works.8391Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) $1.851 million has been spent to date. In 2001/02 two overtaking lanes just west of Kingston were constructed. Further to this, planning and design work was undertaken for lanes, which will be constructed in 2002/03.(3) In 2001/02 two overtaking lanes were constructed adjacent to Kingston. The cost for the planning, design and construction of these lanes is approximately $0.73 million per lane.(4) YearFunding May 2002 Budget(million)No of LanesLane Number and Location2002/03$2m318 west of Waikerie (westbound)19 east of Waikerie (eastbound)20 east of Waikerie (westbound)2003/04$2m22 extension of existing lane opposite Argent Road (westbound)6 west of Seppeltsfield Rd (westbound)2004/05$6m613 west of Blanchetown (eastbound)14 west of Blanchetown (westbound)11 east of Truro (eastbound)15 east of Swan Reach turn off (eastbound)16 east of Swan Reach turn off (westbound)17 west of Waikerie (eastbound)2005/06$6.721m623 west of Monash (eastbound)24 east of Monash (westbound)25 extension of existing ramp west of Renmark (eastbound)27 east of Paringa (eastbound)1 east of Argent Rd (eastbound)4 west of Daveyston (eastbound)(5) The Sturt highway has duplicated carriageways at the Gawler Bypass of 7.5km, and the section through Renmark Township.At the end of the current overtaking lane programme there will be a total of 28 passing lanes on the Sturt Highway to improve overtaking opportunities. These are single sided lanes, which provide 13 Adelaide bound overtaking opportunities, and 15 Victorian bound overtaking opportunities, all of which are approximately 1.5 kms in length. The lanes will be approx 20km apart, and although each is set up as single direction operation, they do not preclude operation in the opposing direction, and will be placed to maximise opportunities for dual directional use.Total cost to complete all overtaking lanes is approximately $18.5 million.8391(Question No. 797)7978391Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 20 August 2002:(1) How many (a) full time permanent staff, (b) part time permanent staff, (c) full time contract staff and (d) part time contract staff were employed by (i) the Ministers Department and (ii) agencies within the Ministers portfolio as at (A) 30 March 1996 and (B) 30 June 2002.(2) For each category of engagement referred to in part (1) and employed by (a) the Ministers Department and (b) agencies within the Ministers portfolio, where were such persons located in (i) 30 March 1996 and (ii) 30 June 2002.8391Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (A) The information sought by the honourable member in relation to part (1)(A) and part (2)(i) of his question is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the use of the resources that would be required to provide that information. I am able to inform the honourable member, however, that data on APS staffing as at 30 June 1996 is contained in the Australian Public Service Statistical Bulletin 1995-1996 which is publicly available. The honourable member should be aware, however, that changes in APS functions and administrative arrangements between 1996 and 2002 may render direct comparisons between the data for those years invalid.(1) (B)(i) and (2)(a)(ii)Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS):At 30 June 2002, DOTARS employed a total of 1093 operative staff (does not include staff on leave without pay in excess of three months who are classed as inoperative): Permanent (Ongoing)Contract (Non-ongoing, casuals)Full TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeTotalACT78549457886NSW1511219QLD1522-19NT2---2WA17121333SA7-1-8VIC13---13TAS2---2Indian Ocean Territories835201109Pacific Ocean Territories2---2Total9415871231093These figures are recorded on the DOTARS human resource management information system (HRMIS).(1) (B)(ii) and (2)(b)(ii)National Capital Authority (NCA):At 30 June 2002, the NCA employed a total of 82 staff including: Permanent (Ongoing)Contract (Non-ongoing, casuals)Full TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeTotalACT55810982Civil Aviation Safety Authority(CASA): At 30 June 2002, the CASA employed 692 staff (excluding CASA Board members, compensation cases and invigilators) including: Permanent (Ongoing)Contract (Non-ongoing, casuals)Full TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeTotalACT3193265353NSW87---87QLD99-5-104NT17---17WA233--26SA26---26VIC76-2179Total6476336692These figures are for contractors and employees recorded on the CASA HRMISAustralian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA): As at 30 June 2002, the AMSA employed 267 staff including: Permanent (Ongoing)Contract (Non-ongoing, casuals)Full TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeTotalACT159929-197NSW13-1-14QLD20-1-21NT2---2WA16-1-17SA3---3TAS3---3VIC9-1-10Total225933-2678391(Question No. 806)8068391Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 August 2002:(1) How many (a) full time permanent staff, (b) part time permanent staff, (c) full time contract staff and (d) part time contract staff were employed by (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) agencies within the Minister's portfolio as at (A) 30 March 1996 and (B) 30 June 2002.(2) For each category of engagement referred to in part (1) and employed by (a) the Minister's Department and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, where were such persons located in (i) 30 March 1996 and (ii) 30 June 2002.8391Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The information sought by the honourable member in part (1) (A) and part (2) (i) of his question (ie in respect of 30 March 1996) is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the use of the resources that would be required to provide that information. I am able to inform the honourable member, however, that data on APS staffing as at 30 June 1996 is contained in the Australian Public Service Statistical Bulletin 1995-1996 which is publicly available.The honourable member should be aware, however, that changes in APS functions and administrative arrangements between 1996 and 2002 may render direct comparisons between the data for those years invalid.The information sought in the remaining parts of the question (ie in respect of 30 June 2002) has been provided by the Department and agencies within my portfolio, as follows:Attorney-General's Department(1) (B) (i) (a) 613 (b) 46 (c) & (d) 35(2) (a) (ii) (a) ACT 581, Vic 32 (b) ACT 44, Vic 2 (c) & (d) ACT 35Administrative Appeals Tribunal(1) (B) (ii) (a) 98 (b) 11 (c) 16 (d) 11(2) (b) (ii) (a) ACT 4, Qld 28, Vic 22, NSW 30, SA 6, WA 7, TAS 1 (b) ACT 2, Qld 3, Vic 1, SA 1, WA 2, TAS 2 (c) ACT 1, Vic 2, NSW 10, SA 1, WA 1, TAS 1 (d) ACT 1, Qld 4, NSW 2, SA 2, WA 2Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence(1) (B) (ii) (a) 38 (b) nil (c) 4 (d) nil(2) (b) (ii) (a) & (c) ACT 42Australian Customs Service(1) (B) (ii) (a) 4,212 (b) 592 (c) 81 (d) 6(2) (b) (ii) (a) ACT 973, Qld 620, Vic 730, NSW 1195, SA 169, WA 364, (a) TAS 32, NT 129 (b) ACT 36, Qld 98, Vic 116, NSW 243, SA 19, WA 78, TAS 1, NT 1 (b) ACT 59, Qld 7, Vic 3, NSW 7, SA 2, WA 1, NT 2 (c) ACT 4, Qld 1, NSW 1Australian Federal Police(1) (B) (ii) (a) 2,799 (b) 111 (c) 105 (d) 17(2) (b) (ii) (a) ACT 1539, NSW 443, NT 12, Qld 214, SA 53, TAS 5, Vic 286, WA 130, Overseas 117 (b) ACT 64, NSW 20, Qld 4, SA 2, Vic 15, WA 6 (c) ACT 74, NSW 17, Qld 1, SA 1, Vic 6, Overseas 6 (d) ACT 7, NSW 1, Qld 3, Vic 3, WA 2, Overseas 1Australian Institute of Criminology & Criminology Research Council(1) (B) (ii) (a) 17 (b) nil (c) 25 (d) 6(2) (b) (ii) (a) ACT 16, Vic 1 (c) & (d) ACT 31Australian Law Reform Commission(1) (B) (ii) (a) 1 (b) nil (c) 14 (d) 7(2) (b) (ii) (a) (c) & (d) NSW 22Australian Security Intelligence Organisation(1) (B) (ii) (a) 497 (b) 25 (c) 77 (d) 19(2) (b) (ii) For security reasons, a breakdown by States is not available.AUSTRAC(1) (B) (ii) (a) 50 (b) 5 (c) 2 (d) 1(2) (b) (ii) (a) NSW 39, Vic 9, Qld 1, WA 1 (b) NSW 4, Vic 1 (c) NSW 2 (d) NSW 1CrimTrac(1) (B) (ii) (a) 28 (b) Nil (c) 7 (d) Nil(2) (b) (ii) (a) ACT 28 (d) ACT 7Family Court of Australia(1) (B) (ii) (a) 531 (b) 37 (c) 30 (d) 2(2) (b) (ii) (a) ACT 79, Qld 90, SA 60, Vic 128, NT 12, TAS 14, NSW 148 (b) ACT 7, Qld 2, Vic 9, NT 1, TAS 6, NSW 12 (c) ACT 18, Vic 1, NSW 11 (d) Qld 1, Vic 1Federal Court of Australia1(1) (B) (ii) (a) 67 (b) 3 (c) 6 (d) 4(2) (b) (ii) (a) ACT 3, Qld 8, SA 2, Vic 32, NT 3, TAS 3, NSW 16 (b) SA 2, NSW 1 (c) Qld 1, Vic 5 (d) Qld 1, TAS 1, Vic 1, NSW 1High Court of Australia(1) (B) (ii) (a) 48 (b) 12 (c) & (d) nil(2) (b) (ii) (a) & (b) ACT 51, NSW 6, Vic 3 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission(1) (B) (ii) (a) 73 (b) 6 (c) 16 (d) 6(2) (b) (ii) (a) (b) (c) & (d) NSW 101 Insolvency Trustee Service Australia(1) (B) (ii) (a) 201 (b) 19 (c) 39 (d) 15(2) (b) (ii) (a) ACT 22, SA 19, Qld 45, NT 1, TAS 8, Vic 37, WA 19, NSW 50 (b) ACT 1, SA 1, Qld 1, TAS 1, Vic 6, WA 4, NSW 5 (c) ACT 10, SA 5, Qld 10, TAS 1, Vic 4, WA 7, NSW 2 (d) ACT 1, SA 3, Qld 4, TAS 1, Vic 5, WA 1National Crime Authority(1) (B) (ii) (a) 170 (b) 7 (c) 101 (d) 13(2) (b) (ii) (a) NSW 77, Vic 58, Qld 16, SA 10, WA 9 (b) NSW 4, Vic 2, WA 1 (c) NSW 49, Vic 25, Qld 17, WA 10 (d) NSW 5, Vic 4, SA 3, WA 1National Native Title Tribunal(1) (B) (ii) (a) 207 (b) 21 (c) 39 (d) 7(2) (b) (ii) (a) WA 128, SA 6, Vic 9, NSW 16, Qld 38, NT 10 (b) WA 12, SA 1, Vic 1, NSW 3, Qld 4 (c) WA 24, SA 2, Vic 1, NSW 1, Qld 10, NT 1 (d) WA 2, NSW 3, Qld 2Office of Director of Public Prosecutions(1) (B) (ii) (a) 370 (b) 48 (c) 44 (d) 4(2) (b) (ii) (a) ACT 44, NSW 105, Vic 98, Qld 57, SA 26, WA 27, TAS 5, NT 8 (b) ACT 4, NSW 13, Vic 12, Qld 11, SA 3, WA 1, TAS 3, NT 1 (c) ACT 4, NSW 16, Qld 5, SA 2, WA 14, TAS 2, NT 1 (d) ACT 1, SA 2, TAS 1Office of Film and Literature Classification(1) (B) (ii) (a) 32 (b) 2 (c) 5 (d) nil(2) (b) (ii) (a) (b) (c) NSW 39 Office of Parliamentary Counsel(1) (B) (ii) (a) 37 (b) 6 (c) & (d) nil(2) (b) (ii) (a) (b) ACT 43Office of the Privacy Commissioner(1) (B) (ii) (a) 36 (b) 1 (c) 10 (d) nil(2) (b) (ii) (a) NSW 33, ACT 3 (b) NSW 1 (c) NSW 9, ACT 11 Staff of the Federal Court perform duties for the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Service, and the Copyright Tribunal8391(Question No. 813)8138391Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 20 August 2002:(1) How many (a) full time permanent staff, (b) part time permanent staff, (c) full time contract staff and (d) part time contract staff were employed by (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) agencies within the Minister's portfolio as at (A) 30 March 1996 and (B) 30 June 2002.(2) For each category of engagement referred to in part (1) and employed by (a) the Minister's Department and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, where were such persons located in (i) 30 March 1996 and (ii) 30 June 2002. 8391Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Refer to answer provided to Question on Notice No. 806.8391(Question No. 818)8188391Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 20 August 2002:(1) How many (a) full time permanent staff, (b) part time permanent staff, (c) full time contract staff and (d) part time contract staff were employed by (i) the Ministers Department and (ii) agencies within the Ministers portfolio as at (A) 30 March 1996 and (B) 30 June 2002.(2) For each category of engagement referred to in part (1) and employed by (a) the Ministers Department and (b) agencies within the Ministers portfolio, where were such persons located in (i) 30 March 1996 and (ii) 30 June 2002.8391Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (A) The information sought by the honourable member in relation to part (1)(A) and part (2)(i) of his question is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the use of the resources that would be required to provide that information. I am able to inform the honourable member, however, that data on APS staffing as at 30 June 1996 is contained in the Australian Public Service Statistical Bulletin 1995-1996 which is publicly available. The honourable member should be aware, however, that changes in APS functions and administrative arrangements between 1996 and 2002 may render direct comparisons between the data for those years invalid.(1) (B)(i) and (2)(a)(ii)Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS):At 30 June 2002, DOTARS employed a total of 1093 operative staff (does not include staff on leave without pay in excess of three months who are classed as inoperative): Permanent (Ongoing)Contract (Non-ongoing, casuals)Full TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeTotalACT78549457886NSW1511219QLD1522-19NT2---2WA17121333SA7-1-8VIC13---13TAS2---2Indian Ocean Territories835201109Pacific Ocean Territories2---2Total9415871231093These figures are recorded on the DOTARS human resource management information system (HRMIS).(1) (B)(ii) and (2)(b)(ii)National Capital Authority (NCA):At 30 June 2002, the NCA employed a total of 82 staff including: Permanent (Ongoing)Contract (Non-ongoing, casuals)Full TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeTotalACT55810982Civil Aviation Safety Authority(CASA): At 30 June 2002, the CASA employed 692 staff (excluding CASA Board members, compensation cases and invigilators) including: Permanent (Ongoing)Contract (Non-ongoing, casuals)Full TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeTotalACT3193265353NSW87---87QLD99-5-104NT17---17WA233--26SA26---26VIC76-2179Total6476336692These figures are for contractors and employees recorded on the CASA HRMISAustralian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA): As at 30 June 2002, the AMSA employed 267 staff including: Permanent (Ongoing)Contract (Non-ongoing, casuals)Full TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeTotalACT159929-197NSW13-1-14QLD20-1-21NT2---2WA16-1-17SA3---3TAS3---3VIC9-1-10Total225933-2678391(Question No. 877)8778391Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 28 August 2002:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 605 (Hansard, 19 August 2002, page 5090), have aircraft noise targets for Sydney Airport been missed.(2) Is the failure of the Government ever to meet its aircraft noise targets as prescribed in the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for Sydney Airport a matter of current public importance.(3) Has he addressed the concerns of those motions of the Sydney Airport Community Forum concerning the full implementation of the LTOP; if so, how; if not, when will he do so.(4) In light of his cognate answer to parts (1) to (3) of question No. 605, can he show by reference to previous questions asked by me, where he has answered part (3) of my question.(5) Can he clarify how and when he has directed Airservices Australia to implement fully the LTOP for Sydney Airport; if not, why not.8391Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)-(5) As I have previously advised the Honourable Member on several occasions, I have dealt with these matters exhaustively in response to questions previously asked by him. 8391(Question No. 884)8848391Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 29 August 2002:(1) Further to his answer to part (3) of question No. 358 (Hansard, 19 August 2002, page 4893), which of the 26 Medicare eligible MRI sites in NSW are teaching hospitals.(2) What proportion of Medicare eligible MRI sites in NSW are teaching hospitals.(3) What is the distribution of teaching hospitals in NSW.(4) What is the distribution of teaching hospitals in NSW that have MRI licenses or offer Medicare eligible MRI services.(5) What proportion of teaching hospitals in NSW either have MRI licences or offer Medicare eligible MRI services.(6) Is the Concord Repatriation General Hospital a teaching hospital of the University of Sydney.(7) Will the Minister offer Concord Repatriation General Hospital an MRI licence and allow it to provide Medicare eligible MRI services; if so, when; if not, why not.8391Andrews, Kevin, MPMr AndrewsHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The honourable member's questions refer mainly to New South Wales and are predominantly State issues. However, I have ascertained the following information:(1) There is no commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a “teaching hospital”. Nonetheless, it is generally accepted that teaching hospitals have a major academic focus and provide a wide range of specialist services. Given the lack of clear definition, it is not possible to precisely state the exact number of such hospitals. The best estimate currently available to the Department of Health and Ageing is that there are nine such hospitals in NSW that have Medicare eligible MRI services, listed below:· John Hunter Hospital (Newcastle)· Liverpool Hospital (Liverpool)· Nepean Hospital (Penrith)· Prince of Wales/Prince Henry Hospital (includes the children's campus, Randwick)· Royal North Shore Public Hospital (St Leonards)· Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (Camperdown)· Westmead Hospital (Westmead)· The New Children's Hospital (Westmead)· St George Hospital (Kogarah)(2) Nine of the 26 Medicare eligible MRI sites in NSW, almost one third, are at the above hospitals.(3) In addition to the teaching hospitals listed in the answer to Question (1) that operate Medicare eligible MRI units, I understand there are four other such hospitals in NSW. The additional four are:· St Vincent's Public Hospital (Darlinghurst)· Wollongong Hospital (Wollongong)· Concord Hospital (Concord)· Gosford Hospital Gosford)(4) The relevant suburbs, for eligible MRI units, are included in the answer to Question (1) above. Such hospitals tend to be clustered close to the major population centres and business districts.(5) It is estimated that nine of the 13 teaching hospitals or close to 70% provide Medicare eligible MRI services (6) The Commonwealth does not have information on this matter. I would suggest that the honourable member may wish to direct this question to the NSW Minister for Health for advice.(7) As indicated in my answer to the same question raised by the honourable member and answered in this House on 19 August 2002, advice received from the MRI Monitoring and Evaluation Group indicates that there are sufficient MRI services available in metropolitan Sydney. It is not possible to indicate when Concord Hospital would be entitled to a MRI licence.8391(Question No. 952)9528391Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, upon notice, on 25 September 2002:(1) How many people currently enrolled in tertiary studies currently reside within the postcode areas of (a) 2045, (b) 2046, (c) 2047, (d) 2131, (e) 2132, (f) 2133, (g) 2134, (h) 2135, (i) 2136, (j) 2137, (k) 2138, (l) 2140 and (m) 2190.(2) How many of these students have an outstanding or accumulated Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) debt.(3) How many students with an outstanding or accumulated HECS debt reside in each of the postcode areas of (a) 2045, (b) 2046, (c) 2047, (d) 2131, (e) 2132, (f) 2133, (g) 2134, (h) 2135, (i) 2136, (j) 2137, (k) 2138, (l) 2140 and (m) 2190.(4) How many people not enrolled in tertiary studies have an outstanding or accumulated HECS debt in each of the postcode areas of (a) 2045, (b) 2046, (c) 2047, (d) 2131, (e) 2132, (f) 2133, (g) 2134, (h) 2135, (i) 2136, (j) 2137, (k) 2138, (l) 2140 and (m) 21908391Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NelsonRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Tertiary students includes students who are enrolled at universities and students who are enrolled in vocational education and training at institutions such as TAFE.Numbers of students enrolled in tertiary studies in specified postcodes Postcode AreaUniversity enrolmentsVocational Education and TrainingTotal204526948975820467851,3482,13320474487031,15121311,3191,7593,07821324297241,15321333708491,21921347479271,67421351,7071,7403,44721364046991,10321377211,2531,974213835063698621404287611,18921905601,8262,386TOTAL8,53713,71422,251(2) (3), (4) The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has provided the information below by postcode on the numbers of students enrolled in semester one 2002 who have a HECS debt, and those who are not currently enrolled but have a HECS debt.The ATO data on HECS debtors uses the address for the mailing of annual HECS statements, that is, the student's permanent home address. However, the data for current university enrolments by postcode refers to the postcode where the student resides during the term/semester. Therefore, there may be currently enrolled students who have a HECS debt whose permanent home address is in the specified postcode area but whose term/semester address is in another postcode area. This results in some occurrences of data for current university enrolments being a lesser figure than the figure for students currently enrolled who have a HECS debt (eg. postcode 2046 below).Number of current university enrolments; currently-enrolled students who have a HECS debt; and former university students who have a HECS debt; by postcode Postcode AreaCurrent university enrolmentsStudents currently enrolled who have a HECS debtPeople not enrolled who have a HECS debt204526922834920467858281,223204744850966221311,3199961,56621324293736122133370369585213474751279021351,7071,0271,657213640433057821377216731,044213835026846421404283075492190560528955TOTAL8,5376,94811,034