2002-12-034013REPS944302002-12-03—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice9443944314:01:009443Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it concerns the more than three million Australians who have a disability on this International Day for People with a Disability. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's report on unmet need for disability services found that 12,500 people with disabilities cannot get accommodation or respite services? In the light of the predictions by the institute, indicating continuing growth in demand for disability services over the next five years, why is the Commonwealth's offer for the next Commonwealth-State-Territory Disability Agree-ment less than half of the equivalent growth funding in the current agreement?9443Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. The offer that has been made by the Commonwealth represents a very significant advance on the existing arrangements. The new disability agreements have yet to be concluded because Senator Vanstone on our behalf has thus far not been able to obtain from the states an indication of how they will augment their contribution. As soon as that occurs, we can together move forward to provide more resources in relation to unmet need. I remind the honourable member that back in 1992, I think, an agreement was concluded between the former Commonwealth government and the state governments whereby employment services for people with disabilities were taken over by the Commonwealth and accommodation and other services were taken over by the states on the understanding that the Commonwealth would make a contribution of something I think—do not hold me to the exact figure—in the order of 20 per cent of the operating costs. That was an agreement that was made—and I am not criticising it—between the Keating government and the various state governments. Subsequent to that there have been, I think, two unmet need amounts contributed by the Commonwealth. We also put on the table recently a percentage increase on the existing funds and we have asked the states to let us know what they are willing also to put on the table. That is the situation. When they are forthcoming, we can move forward together, and I think that is what the Australian people want.944314:04:009443Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister inform the House of ongoing efforts by Australia to fight the scourge of people-smuggling? In particular, will the minister inform the House about Australia's recent efforts to strengthen cooperation between source, transit and target countries in our region?9443Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. I recognise the interest he has shown in this issue and, of course, it is one of particular interest to his constituents, given the geography of the electorate of Kalgoorlie. Australia has clearly developed an effective approach to stopping unauthorised boat arrivals reaching our shores. After all, no boat has landed on the Australian mainland since, I think, August 2001. The government's tough approach is working because we have taken difficult decisions at the domestic and international levels, which are putting Australian national interests first. Our commitment to the processing centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, to mandatory detention in Australia, to a strong legislative framework and to enhanced regional cooperation are all aimed at sending the strongest possible message to the people smugglers that Australia is closed for business. Australia has maintained the momentum from the very important Bali regional ministerial conference in February 2002—a meeting which was cohosted by Australia and Indonesia. Australia's ambassador for people-smuggling is helping to continue to drive the Bali process forward. He participated in two regional meetings last month, which have been focusing on public awareness campaigns, legislative development and law enforcement activities. One of the meetings on information sharing was coordinated by Japan on 14 November. Australia and Indonesia cochaired a steering committee meeting in Bangkok on 18 November. A meeting of a Bali working group, which was chaired by Thailand, met in Shenzhen in China on 25 November to discuss law enforcement coordination. My point is that the Bali process has led to substantial and ongoing momentum right across the region in addressing this question of people-smuggling and, of course, that is having an effect. It has already led to a number of countries in our region strengthening their responses to people-smuggling. I know the honourable member for Kalgoorlie would be interested in a couple of examples. Pakistan, for example, which is a major source country, recently criminalised people-smuggling. Australian officials completed a scoping study in Cambodia, enabling Cambodia to criminalise people-smuggling in its domestic legislation during next year. We are also working closely with Papua New Guinea on its review of its immigration legislation to include the crime of people-smuggling. Indonesia is also preparing legislative proposals to make people-smuggling a criminal offence, which I understand will be considered by the Indonesian parliament early in 2003.With all of this momentum in addressing the question of people-smuggling, it is worth noting that in April of next year we will yet again be cohosting with Indonesia a further Bali conference, a ministerial conference of the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, not just to review what we have achieved since the original Bali conference in February of this year but also to see whether there are still further measures that we can take to guarantee that the efforts that we are very much driving through the region, but with the assistance of a number of other countries, continue to be successful and that people-smuggling is stamped out.944414:09:009444Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does he recall telling the House yesterday in relation to the tax avoidance by Senator Coonan and Andrew Rogers—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I remind the Leader of the Opposition of standing order 153, which indicates that implications against someone of improper conduct should only be advanced by way of a substantive motion.DT4Mr CREAN—What I am asking the Prime Minister is in relation to a question that was asked of him yesterday about this very matter—and his quote.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I refer to the way the question is phrased, that is all.DT4Mr CREAN—I quote him:... it is my understanding that one of the properties in question was purchased before capital gains tax legislation came into effect.Has the Prime Minister seen media reports this morning in which Mr Andrew Rogers states that he purchased 16 Paradise Avenue, Pittwater, from Karnick Trustees Pty Ltd in 1993, therefore making the property subject to capital gains tax? Prime Minister, why have you given this House incorrect information? Will you ensure that Senator Coonan discloses all the facts relating to capital gains tax, and her obligations to it, on this million-dollar Pittwater property?9444Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Let me say at the outset that the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition did improperly and without foundation impute tax avoidance to Senator Coonan and her husband. On the evidence available to me, that is an unfounded allegation and the Leader of the Opposition should have done the proper thing and moved a substantive motion. I have followed this debate carefully, and there are quite a lot of completely unfounded allegations being flung around, not only by the Leader of the Opposition. At least he has sought the cover of parliamentary privilege, which is more than the member for Werriwa did in the interview that he gave this morning, when he said:This is not a case of forgetting to do the tax return; it is a case of avoiding the tax return. They have gone out of their way to make a false declaration of where they live, for the purpose of avoiding land taxes. How can she go on as a federal minister for taxation under those circumstances?As the Leader of the Opposition would well know, you are liable to pay capital gains tax when you realise the capital gain. You do not pay the capital gains tax when you acquire the property. It may have escaped him. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It is your statement.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, it is your law, because you were a member of the government that passed it. What happens with capital gains tax—just so that you understand this, in case you ask any more questions—is that you pay tax on the capital gain. You realise a gain when you sell a property that you have bought earlier.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. My question to the Prime Minister was why he made the distinction yesterday that this property was purchased before capital gains tax came in.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister was asked a question relative to capital gains tax on a particular property and he was responding.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am just stating what the law is. That statement was made on the information then available to me. Mr Rogers has made a statement about the date of the purchase. It is his property—it is not mine, and it is not his wife's property—so of course he would know about it. But it does not alter the fundamental fact that you do not incur a liability for capital gains tax until you actually sell the property. Let me again say that unfounded allegations have been made, this time under the cover of parliamentary privilege. People are being accused of tax avoidance and of making false declarations. I invite the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Werriwa to provide the evidence of the false electoral enrolment declaration. Where is the evidence of that? It is fundamental to the case being made against Senator Coonan, which is that, in some way, a bodgie application was made and it was witnessed by Senator Coonan. Where is the evidence of that?944514:14:009445Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of the progress the government has made in providing health services to rural and regional Australia and in encouraging rural and regional Australians to take out private health insurance? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? If so, what would be the impact of those alternative policies on rural and regional Australia?9445Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for Fairfax for his question. I acknowledge his real interest in this matter as he seeks to secure adequate health provision in places like Gympie, along the Queensland coast, which I have visited with him. I believe that we have put in place a substantial and very worthwhile set of measures to try to address in a concrete and workable way the problem of health delivery in rural and regional areas. The Regional Health Strategy provided just under $600 million, and this has since been topped up with more money. This will help in the area of allied health, particularly nursing, and it will help to get more doctors, health professionals and specialists into country areas. It constitutes the largest injection ever made by a Commonwealth government into rural health.Under this program there are now 10 university departments of rural health, and no fewer than nine clinical schools have been established in regional locations. I have had the opportunity to visit many of them around the country. They are enormously appreciated by people in those regions, and they are making a big difference. Students in rural areas now have the chance to study in or near their home towns. This network also introduces quite a number of urban students to the challenges and benefits of rural practice, and it introduces them to the joys of country living.Since 1996 we have also seen a huge uptake in rural scholarship schemes. In 1996 there were just 150 rural scholarships undertaken in medicine. By 2002 this had increased to 2,400, which is a massive rise. That includes scholarships for medicine, nursing and pharmacy. It is important to recognise that it is generally accepted that rural students are somewhere around nine times more likely to practise a profession like medicine in a country area than a city based student is to move to the country. In 1996 only eight per cent of the intake of students to our medical schools were from rural areas. It is now running at 25 per cent. We are encouraging young doctors by giving financial incentives in return for rural service—for example, under the HECS reimbursement scheme, medical graduates who are willing to commit to rural practice will have part of their HECS debt reimbursed for each year of service in a designated rural area. Private health cover is very important to people in country Australia, just as it is to those in urban Australia. Some nine million Australians are now covered by private health insurance. The private health insurance rebate is the cornerstone of policies that have relieved pressure on Medicare and our public hospital systems. The government wants to ensure that people in rural areas continue to have access to rural private health hospitals and to have incentives to purchase private health insurance.This is not so of those opposite. They went to last year's election promising the electorate that they would retain the rebate in full. But now the Leader of the Opposition is openly canvassing the prospect of scrapping it. Their alternative proposal, as best we can read it, would punish families who have taken out private health insurance by requiring them to pay between $600 and $1,200 more. Particularly in the context of the drought, that is something that a lot of rural and regional Australians just could not afford. If Labor have their way, it will become more difficult for people in country areas with private health cover to visit a doctor, a specialist or a physiotherapist or to purchase new glasses. The fact is that many specialised treatments for rural people are available only in major centres. This is often easily overlooked.Private health insurance gives rural people access to the doctors of their choice and reasonable security in relation to treatment on time, given that that treatment often involves considerable travel and logistical difficulty. Both are very important to people in rural Australia. Rural and regional Australians need to and want to—and I believe should have the right to—choose their own doctor and when and where they will have elective treatment. Private health insurance is a vital mechanism to help them secure that. Labor wants to take it away from them. That is an appalling policy that ought to be condemned by all rural Australians who depend on private health cover.Distinguished Visitors944614:20:009446SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the Senate of Thailand led by Senator Boonton Dockthaisong. The President of the Senate and I have had the opportunity to meet with the delegation. On behalf of the House I extend to them a very warm welcome to the Australian parliament.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice9446944614:20:009446Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement issued late last night by the minister for taxation, Senator Coonan, and Mr Andrew Rogers, in which they admitted that they did not pay land tax on their million-dollar Pittwater property in 1999, 2000, 2001 and most of 2002, supposedly on the basis that they have separate places of residence. Prime Minister, do you believe this to be true? How can you tolerate a minister for taxation who has failed to pay land tax of $50,000 over the past four years while taking $200 billion out of the pockets of honest, hardworking Australian taxpayers?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Werriwa is aware that the latter part of his question would infringe standing order 153. It does impute motives, and it is not proper to use the question for that purpose.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the ruling you gave that the latter part of the member for Werriwa's question was out of order: the question was addressed to the Prime Minister because he is responsible for his code of conduct. The latter part of the question referred to the failure of the minister and the government to pay $50,000 in land tax. The question was entirely in order given the responsibilities of the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer and the Prime Minister's ministerial code of conduct. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—It is a false allegation.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—There is nothing false in the allegation; it has been admitted by the minister.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Let me, for the information of the House, simply refer to standing order 153: Questions shall not be asked which reflect on or are critical of the character or conduct of those persons whose conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion, and notice must be given of questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons.For that reason I had merely indicated that the latter half of the latter sentence of the question from the member for Werriwa was not appropriate.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Further to that ruling: are you saying that the latter half about taking the $200 billion is the bit that is out of order?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser is aware that the question had three or four sentences. The latter few words of the latter sentence included an implication that I felt was inappropriate in the question.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Which is it?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have indicated precisely what I am talking about.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the assumption that you are ruling out the part that asserted there was a failure to pay land tax as the bit that is a reflection: if that is the case, how can it be a reflection on the minister when she stated it in the statement she made? We are simply referring to something she said in the statement she made. There may or may not be allegations which she denies—that is a question for judgment—but this is not one of them.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser may or may not have an advantage over the chair in that, in questions without notice, clearly I am not privy to the questions, nor do I have a copy of them in front of me. As the member for Fraser is well aware, there were implications in the earlier part of the question which were a quote from the statement made by the minister, and so I allowed them to stand. The latter part of the last sentence did not, as I understood it, contain part of a quote made by the minister, hence the action I took.9447Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have forgotten what the question was now—oh, I know; do not remind me. It was about allegations of transgressions by the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer which, on the information available to me, are completely false. I start by quietly making a point that I think is very fundamental to this whole discussion, and that is that the Clareville property has never been owned by Senator Coonan, nor to my understanding has a beneficial interest in that property of any kind ever been in the hands of Senator Coonan. It is her husband's property. I thought that in Australia in 2002 it was a fairly well-accepted principle of public life—and one endorsed by the Australian Labor Party—that two successful professional people could have separate assets, pursue their own careers and be married without what one does being dragged into the activities and affairs of the other. I thought that was a principle that all of those strident feminists on the other side of this parliament would have supported.But apparently not. Apparently, because Senator Coonan's husband owns a property, it is also Senator Coonan's property. I am very surprised; in fact, I am sore amazed at this departure by the Australian Labor Party from such a principle. I have been reading all of this 30th anniversary stuff about how whoever was elected Prime Minister 30 years ago heralded a new era in relation to the equal rights of men and women. What we are having in this parliament from the Labor Party is a massive retreat from that principle. Let me develop this theme. Here is Senator Coonan, who has completely independent assets. Let me read something very instructive that is entirely relevant to the false accusations that have been made against Senator Coonan. I will read from her husband's statement in relation to the Clareville property, which was issued last night:In 1979 I purchased a run-down cottage at 16 Paradise Avenue, Clareville. I acquired the property through a company, Karnick Trustees, named after my two daughters. This all occurred prior to my marriage to Helen. Subsequently, well prior to the introduction of the capital gains tax in 1985, the beneficial interest was transferred to me—transferred to Andrew Rogers; not to Andrew Rogers and Helen Coonan, but to Andrew Rogers. The old house was demolished and a new house was erected on the site. The property is owned by me, and at no time has Helen had any proprietary interest in it. I make the first point, and it is very important: any suggestion of any kind of land tax liability—and I will come to the question of land tax liability in a moment—in relation to the property in Clareville is palpably false and could only be entertained in the mind of a person who is so out of touch with modern Australia as to assume that, if you own a property, half of it is automatically owned by your husband or wife. That is no longer the case in every situation in Australia, and I would have thought those great supporters of feminism, those great supporters of the independent rights of people, on the other side would have been outraged at any suggestion to that effect. He goes on to say:At the time of our marriage, each of us had prior families and responsibilities to them and each of us had various assets which we have retained as separate property. Other Australian families are similarly placed.He goes on to describe the erection of the new house:In September 1999, Helen decided to renovate her home in Woollahra. I have no proprietary interest in her property. Because extensive renovations were required, we moved to my house at Clareville. It was originally envisaged that this would be a relatively short period of full-time residence while renovations were completed. Renovations in fact took longer than expected and significant defects are still to be rectified.He then goes on to describe his own movements and says he:... regarded Clareville as my principal place of residence. I transferred my electoral enrolment to there in 2001.An issue has arisen regarding the witnessing of the application for the electoral enrolment. I table the application signed by Andrew Rogers to transfer his enrolment to Pittwater. As best I can read it, it was witnessed by Bronwyn Louise Reis of 11/29 Rangers Road, Neutral Bay. That does not sound very much like a Helen Coonan to me, but I may be wrong. We have been talking about dodgy enrolments, and the only reason I could not do this yesterday is that the privacy laws of the Commonwealth meant that the person who signed this application had to authorise the Electoral Commissioner to make it available to third parties, including the Prime Minister. For completeness of the record, I also table a copy of the application to transfer from Pittwater to Woollahra. That is signed by Andrew John Rogers and is witnessed by, as best I can read it, Ross McInnes of 1 O'Connell Street, Sydney, New South Wales. That is not very much like Helen Coonan either. So much for the great conspiracy.Let me now deal with the second count in the declaration. That relates to allegations concerning the avoidance of land tax on the Clareville property. Mr Rogers, in his statement yesterday, explained the circumstances in relation to that, including, quite properly, the payment of the land tax in relation to the recent year. A letter Andrew Rogers has written today to the Office of State Revenue reads as follows:Following upon my letter to you, assessment dated 22 November 2002 was issued which was paid on 2 December 02 to the ANZ Bank Rose Bay.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Yesterday!ZD4Mr HOWARD—We have made a great discovery! Yesterday was 2 December. That is wonderful! Maybe they will have a policy tomorrow. The letter goes on:As you are no doubt aware the issue of my land tax payments has become a matter of great political controversy.Andrew has a very good sense of humour. He is a lot more tolerant of this lot opposite than many other people would be. He goes on to say:Please let me know if there is any issue of concern to your office and whether I can be of any assistance in resolving it.I table that letter as well. That is not the letter of a person who has done anything wrong. It is not the letter of a person who wants to avoid anything. The only people who are guilty of anything in this parliament are the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Werriwa and others who have falsely impugned the reputation of decent, successful Australians. Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Boothby is seeking the call and is being denied it by colleagues around him.944914:36:009449Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Ageing representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister inform the House of the success of government measures to encourage Australians to take up private health insurance? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?9449Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question. I inform him and the House that Australians, and in particular working Australian families, have taken up the government's private health insurance initiatives with considerable enthusiasm. The September 2002 quarter figures show that over 8.7 million people, some 44 per cent of the Australian population, have private health insurance for hospital cover. This 8.7 million Australians is an increase of 4,000 on the previous quarter. You can compare these figures with the same quarter in September 1999, when just under 5.9 million people or 30.9 per cent of Australians were covered by private health insurance. So in this three-year period we have had a substantial increase from 5.9 million to 8.7 million Australians covered by private health insurance. What this indicates is that working Australian families in particular—because over five million of the 8.7 million people covered were covered by a family policy—are exercising their freedom to choose private health cover.Singles have also taken up private health insurance strongly, with some 618,000 more people covered by singles policies since September 1999. This is a demonstration of the success of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, Lifetime Health Cover and the no gaps policy of this government. This is borne out by statistics in relation to private hospital admissions. According to figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, private hospital admissions in 2001 had grown by 12 per cent and, by contrast, public hospital admissions fell by 0.1 per cent the previous year. So Australians continue to benefit from greater choice and stronger private health insurance.The member for Boothby asked me whether or not there are any alternative policies. Of course, we know that the opposition, the Australian Labor Party, views the 30 per cent rebate with disdain. Earlier this year we had the shadow minister for health, the member for Perth, describe the 30 per cent rebate as a public policy crime. Indeed, we have been waiting for a year for a policy from the Labor opposition, and the first policy we get is an indication that the Labor Party will abolish the rebate. That means imposing a tax slug on Australians of up to $1,200 a year. This is what the Labor Party wants to do: to impose a tax slug on those 8.7 million Australians who currently have private health insurance, which will be between $600 and $1,200 a year, by abolishing the 30 per cent policy. Of course, this includes the five million people who are covered by those policies that go to families. What we have is not only a tax slug on Australians generally but a tax slug which goes to ordinary Australian families. The Labor Party does not care about making the health care system affordable for working families; that is not part of what it intends to do. It simply wants to go back to its ideological view of a socialised health system. It does not want working families to have choice—and that, of course, would be a real public policy crime.944914:41:009449Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to statements made in the Senate by his minister for taxation, Senator Coonan, on 19 November, when she twice described her family company, Endispute Pty Ltd, as a shelf company—that is, it is a non-active, non-trading company. Prime Minister, are you aware of these two tax invoices making payments to Endispute in September this year: one a payment of $4,950 from the NRMA to Endispute on 4 September and the other a payment of $6,270 from the NRMA to Endispute on 5 September? Don't these payments indicate that Endispute is, in fact, an active trading company and not a shelf company, as claimed by Senator Coonan? Prime Minister, isn't this another example of the minister for taxation misleading the parliament about her financial affairs? 3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 153 does not and is not intended to protect a member of this place from the scrutiny of the House. It is, however, a requirement that, if substantive allegations of a personal nature are to be made against a member, they should be made on notice. The purpose of that requirement is to uphold the common law principle of natural justice that a person is entitled to know the nature of the charge being made against them. The Prime Minister has already demonstrated that yesterday's charge against the minister was completely salacious—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta will resume his seat. I had allowed the question to stand. There was more imputation in the question than I was comfortable with, but that is frequently the case with a number of questions. I had already drawn the member for Werriwa's attention to standing order 153. The Prime Minister has the call.9450Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not have any information about those invoices and, if there is anything that I should tell the parliament after I obtain information about those invoices, I will do so. But, can I suggest, with respect not only to the member for Werriwa but to the other members of the opposition who are pursuing this matter, that the company, Endispute, was a company in which Senator Coonan had an interest which she disposed of after she became a minister. She disposed of two of her—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Did she?ZD4Mr HOWARD—The member for Werriwa interrupts, `Did she?' She transferred the interest to her son, and her son is not a dependant. Have we now reached a situation where independent children of ministers are now dragged into disputes? According to the opposition, everybody is fair game. The husband or the wife is fair game—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, my point of order is on the question of relevance. I have not asked a question about Senator Coonan's children; I have asked a question about her honesty and accuracy in making statements to the Senate.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister was, I thought, indicating the way in which the law has changed to ensure that husband and wife relationships and family relationships do not have the same implications as they had some decades ago. The Prime Minister may continue.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I was making the point, Mr Speaker, that the minister, when she became a minister, in accordance with the guidelines looked to her situation and disposed of the interest she had.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I apologise to the Prime Minister: I was in conversation with the Clerk.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I was making the point in answer to what I thought was an interjection from the member for Werriwa. Sometimes because of my slightly defective hearing I do not get things right, but I thought he said, `Did she?'Government members—He did.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The more acute hearing of people on the front bench confirms that he did say that. I was merely making the point that, yes, she transferred to her adult son. That is perfectly permissible. Let me read the relevant guideline:Ministers are required to resign directorships in public companies and may retain directorships in private companies only if such company operates, for example, a family farm, business or portfolio of investments, and if retention of the directorship is not likely to conflict with the minister's public duty ... Ministers are required to divest themselves, or relinquish control, of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities. The transfer of interests to a spouse or dependent family member or to a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment.I have been advised by my department, and it is, on the information available publicly, manifestly the case, that as Endispute was not involved in the area of Senator Coonan's ministerial responsibilities and that in any event her son is not dependent—I understand he is a fully employed lawyer, of some 25 or 26 years, and clearly is not dependent on his mother or on Mr Rogers—there has been no breach of the ministerial guidelines. Basically, this is an allegation that in some way the minister has behaved in a fashion which has either breached the guidelines or been improper. She has not breached the guidelines. There is no evidence that she has been involved in any tax avoidance practices. There is no evidence that her husband has been involved in any tax avoidance practices. But let me say this—and this really gets back to the point I was making in an earlier answer: even if there were some suggestion regarding the conduct of her husband, is that automatically a disqualification? I thought we had a principle in this country now that married people who followed their own careers had a right to be treated on their own merits according to their own achievements. But apparently when it suits the professedly profeminist Labor Party they abandon that principle and it is perfectly okay to drag the husband in, to drag the wife in, to drag the children in.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was about Senator Coonan's honesty and openness in the Senate. It was not about—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was asked a question about a shelf company; he is entirely in order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The minister, on the information available to me and available publicly, has not been guilty of any breach of the ministerial guidelines. She has acknowledged an error in relation to the return that was put in to the Senate.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—A typo!ZD4Mr HOWARD—There are a lot of people on your side who have made typos, mate, so I would be very careful about running that! For two or three weeks we have had a concerted campaign on the part of the Labor Party to get Senator Coonan: that is what this has been all about. It has been a determined attempt and it has failed, because there is no evidence to support the allegation. It has been to besmirch her reputation by making allegations about her husband which are in any event false, making allegations about her professional conduct, dragging her adult children into it. This has just been an attempt, and there is no merit at all. To the charge that she has in some way breached the guidelines: there is no evidence of that—none whatsoever. To the charge that she has been involved in tax avoidance: there is no evidence of that. To the charge that her husband has been guilty of tax avoidance: on the information available to me there is no evidence to support that. Moreover, Andrew Rogers, Senator Coonan's husband, has indicated a willingness to provide any information to the state Land Tax Commissioner. When you look at all of those facts and circumstances, what you have got is a miserable failure of a smear campaign against a decent minister in my government.945114:51:009451Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Has the minister seen recent alternative policies on unauthorised arrivals? What impact would such policies have on border protection?9451Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Mitchell for his question. I was hoping to see the policy today on issues relating to asylum questions, detention and related matters. I was hoping to welcome it as a positive contribution to debate. At least I know that it has been a positive contribution to debate. It appears to be primarily an issue that has not yet been resolved, but I am certainly prepared to assist, if I can, with some constructive comments that might aid those who are deliberating on these matters.One of the first observations I would make is that during the last election there was, I think, a good understanding within the Australian community that the government of Australia should be able to determine who is able to come to Australia and settle in Australia and be protected in Australia. I was surprised, therefore, to see that some people were toying with the idea of giving over the responsibility for making those decisions to another international agency—the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 00AMRKing, Catherine, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order, the member for Ballarat for the third time!0J4Mr RUDDOCK—In relation to those who are here in Australia and in our territory where we have responsibility for those matters, we will not be ceding our responsibility or our sovereignty to any unelected and unaccountable body. I know at a time like this it is often easy to consider policy issues without any principal regard to the long-term and potential costs of those policies. I encourage those who are participating in any debate on these matters to have regard to some of those questions that they will have to look at at a later point in time when they are considering asking the Australian community to elect them.It seems to me that one of the major consequences of all the proposals they are looking at is that they are going to lead—as I think I saw expressed by a minister in the United Kingdom—to assistance for those people who would like to get asylum seekers on the gravy train for the legal profession. In fact I think the immigration minister, Lord Rooker, spoke of lawyers laughing all the way to the bank. What I can see in the proposals that are before us is the possibility for additional litigation arising out of a whole host of issues, particularly when you try to set artificial time limits as to how long people might be held with the potential for those matters to be litigated—and litigated not after 90 days but litigated after 120 days, 150 days or 180 days as you go through considering each of those issues.In fact, as I looked at the range of proposals it seemed to me that they were embarking upon initiatives that would enable Australia to be again targeted by those who want to exploit our generosity, our capacity to assist refugees and our capacity to assist the most vulnerable. The concerns that I have when you talk about releasing people promptly into the community, with only the most superficial judgments as to whether or not they have substantial claims, is that it is only going to bring about a situation where more people would seek to access Australia.If the Leader of the Opposition wants to see how those matters are operating abroad, he ought to spend a little more time with his mentor, Tony Blair, because I see that in the United Kingdom today it is reported that they are looking at 100,000 asylum seekers for the first time. Last year it was 92,000. The figure for nine months of this year has already reached 80,600. One of the issues that becomes very clear in relation to the United Kingdom is that, notwithstanding their advocacy for being able to remove as many as 30,000 people as rejected asylum seekers a year, they are now replacing the use of the words `30,000 asylum seekers' with `a greater proportion'. Why are they doing that? Because the best that they have been able to achieve is to remove 1,000 a month.That overseas performance in relation to these matters demonstrates that, when you have people who are not refugees free and at large in your community, they are not available for removal, they cannot be readily located, and that leads to more and more people seeking to arrive. I encourage those who are participating in the debate to listen carefully to comments such as those that I heard repeated again this morning on AM from the shadow minister for multicultural affairs. There is some good sense being spoken by some but there are some who are undermining, considerably, the position of Australia in relation to doing, I think, an outstanding job—something that I will deal with later today in a statement I am making—in demonstrating how you can manage your borders effectively, how you can maintain the integrity of your borders, and how you can enhance your capacity to assist the most vulnerable refugees in the world.945214:58:009452Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask you again, Prime Minister: on 19 November in the Senate Minister Coonan twice described her family company Endispute as a shelf company, but how can it be a non-active, non-trading company when these two invoices show payments of $11,200 to Endispute just three months ago? 9453Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have already indicated, in answer to the first question, that I would seek information regarding those pieces of paper that were waved around by the member for Werriwa, and if there is anything that I should appropriately address to the House in supplementation to my answer I will do so. But he seems to have missed the point: there has clearly been no breach of the guidelines.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—I thought it was our function to ask questions.ZD4Mr HOWARD—You can ask as many questions as you like. I am quite enjoying this question time. I would not stop asking questions. Please don't do that! Please don't stop asking me some questions. The point here is that the minister has been charged with all manner of things. She has been charged with breaching the guidelines—no evidence. She has been charged with tax avoidance—no evidence. Her husband has been charged with tax avoidance—absent is any implication of her in that claim. What that has to do with her ministerial duties, given the fact that they are independent professional people entitled to their own independent careers, completely escapes me; nonetheless, he has dealt with that. That has been dealt with. I say to the opposition that, if they have got evidence that she has broken the guidelines, that she has been guilty of tax avoidance or that he has been guilty of tax avoidance, I will examine it. As I indicated yesterday, if there is anything appropriate that ought to be done, it will be done. But the opposition has not made a case. This has all the hallmarks of a desperate smear campaign by an opposition that believes in nothing and has got no policies.945315:00:009453May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House about the dossier released today by the UK government on Saddam Hussein's record of human rights abuses in Iraq? What is Australia's response to this report?9453Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for McPherson for her question and recognise the interest she shows in these issues on behalf of her constituents. The British government has, in the last few hours, produced a damning report on the human rights record of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The dossier details the appalling record of human rights abuses by Saddam and those closest to him and sets out the terrifying nature of the regime—a regime that controls the only state in recent times to have used weapons of mass destruction against its own people and which survives through oppression and fear. The dossier quotes, among other things, estimates that over 100,000 Kurds were killed or disappeared during the 1987-88 Anfal by Saddam's forces against Kurdish insurgents, including through the use of chemical weapons. The dossier's contents do not come as a surprise to us. Australia has raised serious concerns about Iraq's human rights record in the past, including through co-sponsorship since 1991 of a resolution in the UN Commission on Human Rights expressing great concern over the Iraqi government's flagrant violation of the human rights of its own citizens. But the dossier does remind us of the cradle to grave regime of fear run by Saddam Hussein and his cohorts and that Iraq's abuses go well beyond his possession of weapons of mass destruction. Among other things, the dossier highlights the systematic, brutal repression of dissent. The report notes that official Iraqi instructions given to security forces on how to react to demonstrations were that 95 per cent of the demonstrators were to be killed and the remainder left for interrogation. It underlines the systematic, almost bureaucratic, use of torture. In mid-2000, the regime issued a decree approving amputation of the tongue as a penalty for slander against the president or his family. The dossier provides harrowing personal accounts of abuse and mistreatment, including a horrific account of a husband and wife's ordeal at the hands of the Iraqi torturers, the torture of the wife having taken place in front of their children.I think the House would know only too well that the government's primary concern remains disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. As the House knows, we hope that this can be done peacefully. In disarming Saddam Hussein, the international community would vastly improve the security of the region, uphold global non-proliferation norms and deprive Saddam Hussein of one of his main tools of oppression. Let me also make clear that, in drawing attention to this dossier, we are not seeking to foreshadow any particular course of action, and we remain committed to the enforcement of Security Council resolution 1441. The dossier reminds us of the type of regime we are dealing with here. I suggest that all those on this side of the House, who definitely have an interest in the issue of Iraq, and those on the other side who may have an interest as well, take the time to read this report. I will happily make it available to the House at an appropriate time. 945415:05:009454Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question again is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of Senator Coonan's claim in the Senate on 19 November that she is no longer actively involved in the administration of her family company, Endispute? Why then do these two invoices make payment to Endispute at 6 Rosemont Avenue, Woollahra, Senator Coonan's residential address? If Andrew Rogers, the company secretary of Endispute, lived at Pittwater until last week, when he again changed his enrolment, and if Senator Coonan has no involvement in the company, as she has told the Senate, why then is Endispute being run from Senator Coonan's home in Woollahra?9454Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will make no claims about where the company is being run from without getting advice. I would proffer some suggestions, though, but first I would make the point that those invoices that are being waved around are related to accounts paid three months ago. That, of course, was after she transferred her interest. It is also my understanding that her adult son lives in Woollahra.Honourable member interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, that could be the explanation. Nothing unusual about that.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Does she own the house?ZD4Mr HOWARD—Of course she owns the house.DT4Crean, Simon, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, he has discovered she owns the house! What an astonishing achievement! What we are witnessing now is an opposition without a shred of evidence. They are too ashamed to move to another subject, so what they are going to do is reheat the same question. We have had three reheats of the one question. We have had the two invoices waved around on three occasions. Of course I will get advice about where the company is being run from. But can I just go back to the fundamental point: where is the evidence of tax avoidance? Where is the evidence that the code was broken? Where is the evidence of wrongdoing that would justify this besmirching of the name of decent Australian citizens? There is none and, until the opposition produce it, they are further reducing their esteem in the eyes of the Australian public.945415:07:009454Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on retail trade and building approvals? What do today's numbers indicate about the pace of growth in the economy?9454Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question and his interest in the economy. I think many Australians are interested in the state of the economy, job prospects, interest rates and all of those other things that affect their lives in very practical ways. The retail trade data today showed that current price turnover actually fell, seasonally adjusted, in October. In original terms retail trade was 6.5 per cent higher in October and over the year, seasonally adjusted, six per cent. So there was quite good growth over the year, but it slowed a bit in the month of October. The turnover for department stores and household goods was up for the month of October, but turnover of recreational goods fell. I do not have an explanation as to why the turnover of recreational goods would fall in the month of October, but it has let the retail trade down for the month. It could well be taken into account in some of these statistical comparisons or in some of the compilations of the figures. I point to the fact that over the course of the year retail trade was six per cent higher in seasonally adjusted terms, so it is still quite strong. Building approval figures were also released today. They showed that the number of building approvals increased by 25.3 per cent in the month of October—16.7 per cent higher than a year ago. Again, I would not read too much into that monthly figure: it is a very volatile figure. It seems to be a result of lumpy approvals coming through, particularly in medium-density approvals. For example, the number of private medium-density approvals rose by 68.5 per cent in October after falling by 30.3 per cent in September. So you have enormous lumpiness and enormous volatility. The most that you could say about the building approvals is that there does still seem to be some growth, although much more moderate growth, in the housing industry.Also today, the ACCI-Westpac survey of industrial trends was released. Although business confidence remains subdued, the ACCI-Westpac survey noted that capacity utilisation jumped to 10-year highs— very high in historical terms. It also noted that business investment plans were strong, with plans to invest in plant and equipment being the strongest they have been since 1994. You get a picture of capacity utilisation increasing and business investment looking quite strong. The government expects business investment to pick up from housing, which we expect to moderate. The retail sector appears to be reasonably strong, supported by low interest rates.The great threats to the economy at the moment come from drought and the international economy. We will be getting the national accounts for the quarter tomorrow, which will show what growth was like in the quarter which has just passed. These are difficult times, with the drought and the hardship that is going on, particularly in rural Australia, and with the weakness around the world. But the Australian economy appears, with a diversified growth prospect, to be confronting those challenges as well as any of the developed economies in the world, and we continue to lead the developed economies of the world in terms of growth.945515:12:009455Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. It refers to an earlier answer he gave in relation to the company Endispute, in which he said:... Endispute was not involved in the area of Senator Coonan's ministerial responsibilities ...I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware of Minister Coonan's policy recommendations for the reform of the insurance industry in Australia, specifically her statement to the Senate on 17 October, when she said that she was looking:... at how one can better do further work to encourage mediation and pre-trial dispute resolution. I ask the Prime Minister: are you aware that Endispute is involved in mediation and received payments from NRMA for mediation services at her home?9455Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In case the Leader of the Opposition has missed it, the fact is that Senator Coonan divested herself, in accordance with the ministerial guidelines, of her involvement in Endispute. Don't you know that? She got out of it. She got out of the company in accordance with the rules. My department's advice, which I have read, was:As Endispute was not involved in the area of Senator Coonan's ministerial responsibilities—and in any event her son is not dependent—because she transferred the interest to her non-dependent son—there has been no breach of the Prime Ministerial guidelines.That is what I read out because that is the advice I have. The rule says that they are required to resign directorships in public companies and may retain directorships in private companies only if such a private company operates, for example, a family farm, business or portfolio of investments and if retention of the directorship is not likely to conflict with the minister's public duty. For example, a minister should question the retention of a directorship in a company in which shareholders extend beyond the minister's own family. Ministers are required to divest themselves or relinquish control of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities. What happened here is that, although on one interpretation—and certainly on the interpretation of my department—Endispute was not involved in an area of Senator Coonan's ministerial responsibility, she behaved as if it were and she divested herself of the interest, in accordance with the guidelines. In other words, she was doubly prudent. She had the advice of the department—and people might argue about that. The Leader of the Opposition might argue about that; let him. Let us concede that—not in reality but hypothetically—for the purposes of the argument. The fact is that she did as the guidelines exhorted her to do—that is, she transferred the interest to her non-dependent son. They are the indisputable facts. In those circumstances, stripping aside all the rhetoric, the verbiage and everything, where is the transgression? If we get to the situation in this country where the only people who are going to go into parliament are people who have no assets, it will be a ridiculous state of affairs. This, frankly, is what is involved here.On the information available to me, the minister has done nothing wrong. I think she has been a very competent minister, and judging by the reaction she received in our party room this morning that is the view of the members of the government parties. I find, as I move around the business community, that she is regarded as a very conscientious minister and as a very valuable addition to the front bench. The opposition should pause and understand that what they are trying to do now is generate a case that just will not stand up. If they have some decent evidence, instead of word games, they should present it, and I will have a look at it. But they have not done so thus far, and the case just falls to the ground.945615:17:009456Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister advise the House of the government's actions to alert European countries, particularly France, to the damaging effects of subsidies on developing countries and Australian farmers? How does this compare with previous approaches that have been taken to trade and Australian farmers?9456Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Dawson for her question and her obvious interest in improving the world trading circumstances for our farmers, agricultural exporters and particularly the sugar producers in her electorate of Dawson. It is no secret that Australia takes a very assertive and aggressive stance on agricultural trade policy reform. We take every opportunity to prosecute the case on behalf of Australian agricultural industries and exporters, through the multilateral system—and I understand we still enjoy the support of the Labor Party in that pursuit—where we argue the case that we need to see reform of the levels of subsidies of agriculture that are provided across the world by a number of protectionist countries. We argue that case in the forums of the WTO and in other trade ministerial forums across the world.It is also very important that we engage the support of the developing countries of the world. There are over a billion people living in poverty in countries across the world. Many of those countries are members of the WTO—over 100 developing countries. If they could get better access to the wealthier markets of the world for their agricultural products, we would lift many hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. That argument needs to be taken into those wealthy markets of the world, and we are certainly doing that. We are doing that in a very up-front and aggressive way, through our advocacy of agricultural trade policy reform.Last week in the French newspaper Le Monde there was an article outlining the importance of agricultural trade policy reform, not just for countries like Australia and other members of the Cairns Group but also, more importantly, for the developing countries of the world. We need to get consumers in Europe, the United States and Japan to understand the importance of reforming and removing agricultural subsidies across the world. In the Le Monde article, there was a section that spoke about the distortions in the sugar industry that I know the member for Dawson will be interested in: A recent report by Oxfam, an independent analysis called The Great EU Sugar Scam, has found that the common agriculture policy depresses and destabilises world prices below even the most efficient unsubsidised producers, undercuts developing country exporters in third markets and restricts access to the EU markets by several million tonnes.And yet sugar has continued to escape the reform process of the common agriculture policy in Europe.It is important that we continue to argue the case, as the leader of the Cairns Group and also as the advocate and spokesman for many developing countries, on this particular issue. The reason—it should be pointed out—that we have to continue to argue this case is that, as a result of the Uruguay Round, the levels of support that are provided to agricultural producers in other parts of the world are legal. They were made legal as a result of the negotiations in the Uruguay Round. The Labor Party, in government back then, signed off and legalised those levels of support under the WTO. The Labor Party agreed to the EU supporting agriculture in the EU to the tune of $73 billion. They agreed to a level of support of $31 billion in Japan. They agreed to a level of support of $19 billion in the United States. At the same time, they relegated Australia to only being able to support our agricultural industries to the tune of $300 million. That is the reason we are so aggressive in our stance on reform and, obviously, that is the reason the Labor Party continue to urge the government to focus on the multilateral system—to try to fix up the legacy that they left us from the Uruguay Round of negotiations.945715:21:009457Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to Senator Coonan's admission in the Senate yesterday that she lodged an incorrect pecuniary interest declaration to the parliament, listing her Woollahra property as an investment property. Prime Minister, did the senator also make a false declaration to you in her ministerial pecuniary interest return last year? What action have you, Prime Minister, taken to ensure that the minister has not misled you as well as the parliament?9457Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for that question. I did in fact check that point. That mistake was not repeated in the return she gave me.945715:22:009457Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House of proposed changes to the workplace relations system in South Australia? What impact will these changes have on jobs and investment in my home state of South Australia, and what is the government's response?9457Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Grey for his question. I appreciate his concern to ensure that the young people of South Australia are given a fair go. I can inform the House that legislation currently before the South Australian parliament will mean that apprentices and trainees in that state will no longer be able to be employed under federal Australian workplace agreements. Some 1,700 South Australian apprentices and trainees are currently employed under AWAs. One of the reasons why AWAs have proved popular in South Australia is the inflexibility of state awards: 34 of the 67 chief South Australian state awards do not provide for traineeships at all, and some nine of them do not even provide for part-time work. I am very sorry to say to the member for Grey that right now several hundred young South Australians who have commenced working on Australian workplace agreements are in limbo because the South Australian government is refusing to register their training agreements.For the first few months the South Australian government did its best to appear conciliatory, but it seems now that it has embarked upon a simple, ideological crusade. Last week we had the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education down there, Jane Lomax-Smith, saying, `This government believes in collective agreements not individual agreements.' There they are: the yuppie socialists, the Bollinger Bolsheviks, revealing their true colours. She might as well have come out of the parliament dressed in clogs and cloth cap, waving the red flag and singing the Internationale—that is the kind of time warp she is living in. What this attitude proves is that Chris Schacht was right when he said that the South Australian Labor Party was completely dominated by two union secretaries, despite the Leader of the Opposition's beloved 50-50 rule, which has been operating there for several years. Let me tell the House that the federal government has legal advice that this South Australian act would, if passed, fall foul of section 109 of the Australian Constitution. I urge South Australian members to exercise their independent judgment when considering this matter and not put the jobs and the futures of young South Australians at risk because of Labor's ideological obsession.945815:25:009458Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyIND00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. In light of the national drought now rapidly expanding into North Queensland, is the minister aware that the Queensland government has refused to allow the taking of water, except in minuscule amounts in times of flood flows? In light of this fact, can the minister provide any action that will enable graziers to access water from, for example, the Burdekin River, which above the dam encompasses nearly a quarter of Queensland's landmass? Is the minister aware that in this case graziers watch water running down the river and most of its tributaries while on its banks their cattle are starving to death? Specifically, can the federal government intervene in North Queensland, where only around one million of North Queensland's 200 million megalitres of run-off is made available for any purpose whatsoever—the lowest water utilisation rate of any state or region on earth?9458Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. The federal government is of course very concerned about and involved in the issue of land-holder water rights, and that is being addressed through the COAG process. But the actual control of water being taken from streams in Queensland is fundamentally the area of the Queensland government. I will, however, refer the member's question to the minister for agriculture to see if he is able to add anything further to the answer.945815:27:009458Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10—My question is to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Minister, how important is tourism to regional communities, particularly during times of drought? What can Australians do during their summer holidays to help regional communities?4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—Shower with a friend!Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—When the House has come to order! The Minister for Small Business and Tourism, with a little assistance from the member for Banks.9458Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—I would like to thank the member for Canning for the question. I spent the weekend with the member for Canning in the Peel region, visiting Mandurah, Jarrahdale and Fairbridge. I understand the Prime Minister went to Fairbridge. It is a very important part of Australia's heritage. Regional tourism represents $24 billion a year to regional Australia. It employs 180,000 full-time employees, with a large number of people associated with and reliant on the regional tourism business. In many cases it can hold up towns during tough times.Last week I was in the electorate of the member for Gwydir, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I went to Coonabarabran and went down the street to talk to some of the shop owners. The owner of the menswear shop in Coonabarabran said that his sales are about 30 per cent reliant on tourists coming through the town and that, whilst he has been able to survive during these tough times, tourism is an important part of the local business community's sustenance. The newsagent had the same story, as did the Internet cafe. They all said they are very heavily reliant on the number of tourists going through the middle of Coonabarabran.In Broken Hill, in the member for Parkes's electorate, Ron and Richard of Delprat's mine tours said that increasingly they are finding that tourism is holding up the town, even though it is very heavily reliant on agriculture and mining. There is the great example of the Line of Lode, which many ministers have been along over the last few years. The Line of Lode has been a beneficiary of a federation grant from the Commonwealth government, and it is increasingly helping to sustain Broken Hill. So too is the Living Desert, to which we contributed I understand about $1 million. The Living Desert plays a very important part in attracting new tourists to Broken Hill. What can Australians do this summer to help regional areas that may be affected by the drought? Apart from all the activity that is being undertaken, of course, to help farmers, it is vitally important that Australians continue to take their holidays in regional Australia. Last year 30 per cent of working Australians did not take a holiday. That represents an additional eight per cent to the cost of employment in Australia. A further 20 per cent of Australians did not take their full holidays. It is vitally important, when domestic tourism represents three-quarters of the Australian tourism industry and when 58 cents in every dollar spent on tourism in Australia goes to regional Australia, notwithstanding the drought, that people understand, particularly in the metropolitan areas, that regional Australia is still open to tourism during these summer holidays. People should go out there and spend their money because in many cases those tourism dollars are helping to hold up those towns.945915:32:009459Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it refers to the obligation in the code of conduct, which he has been quoting to us, for ministers to:... have regard to the interests of their immediate families ... as well as their own when ensuring that no conflict or apparent conflict between interests and duties arises.Can the Prime Minister confirm that Endispute Pty Ltd is actively engaged in the provision of alternative dispute resolution services with an emphasis on commercial disputes, which is a direction actively promoted by Senator Coonan in her portfolio responsibilities? Now that we know that Endispute is an active trading company, not a shelf company, can the Prime Minister assure the House that none of the activities of Endispute Pty Ltd constitute a conflict or an apparent conflict of interest with her ministerial responsibilities?9459Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of that part of the code. I am also aware, as the Leader of the Opposition should be aware, of the other part of the code that I read out. I again remind the Leader of the Opposition that, when the minister was appointed, she got out of the company. Absent a situation where her husband abandoned the pursuit of his legal career, what more could she be required to do? I know Mr Rogers quite well. I have not personally spoken to him in relation to this matter—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Of course you know him!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, and I am not ashamed to know him. He is a very reputable lawyer and he is married to a very reputable lawyer, as well.Government members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Prime Minister, respond to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—He enjoys a deserved reputation for considerable competence. I know for a fact, based on what he has said previously to me—not in connection with this issue, and given the sensitivity of being married to a minister in any portfolio—that Andrew is keenly aware of the need to separate his responsibilities from those of his wife. We have had situations in this parliament where a minister of the Crown has been married to a High Court judge, and that has not been the subject of any suggestion of impropriety.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari, for the third time!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The reality is that, unless you impute dishonourable conduct to two people, the implication in the Leader of the Opposition's question is false. What the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting is that, because Andrew Rogers's company, from which Helen Coonan exited when she became a minister, is involved in a certain form of conduct, automatically there is some appearance of conflict of interest. I reject that, particularly in view of the assurances that I have received from her and, through somebody else, from him— K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—From whom?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa!K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Was it at a seance?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—that they have taken very great care to keep their respective business and commercial activities separate. As far as the code is concerned, I do not believe on the information available—and it is plain on the information publicly available—that Helen Coonan, the minister, has in any way breached the obligation that the Leader of the Opposition referred to. Quite plainly she got out of the company as soon as she became a minister. Both of them are scrupulous in keeping their professional careers separate, as are many husbands and wives who have independent professional careers—and there are many. I once again make the general observation that I thought we had reached a stage in this country where a man or a woman could have their own career without in some way having attached to them by implication the career of the person to whom they were married.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It's in your code of conduct.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The whole basis of this grubby little exercise has been guilt by association. They started off on conflict of the code, they have ended up with conflict of the code and they have no evidence. There is no evidence that there has been any breach of that part of the code to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. There is not a skerrick of evidence that there has been any breach of that. There is no evidence that the minister breached the requirement in relation to directorships. She got out immediately. There is no evidence that she was guilty of tax avoidance. There is no evidence that her husband has been guilty of tax avoidance. The truth is that this is a miserable smear campaign which is a last resort for an opposition that has lost relevance in the great policy debates in this country. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice9460946015:38:009460Mr DOWNER,MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer. During question time I answered a question about Saddam Hussein's crimes and human rights abuses as articulated in a document produced by the British government. I said during my answer that honourable members might be interested to read this report—those who have an interest in policy issues. For the benefit of members, I table the report.R36Albanese, Anthony, MP4G4Mr DOWNER,MPMr DOWNER—You only ask smear questions. You do not ask proper questions, so it does not give me an opportunity to talk.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will not respond to the member for Grayndler. R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Grayndler!Personal Explanations946015:39:009460Mr STEPHEN SMITH,MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5V5Mr STEPHEN SMITH,MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I do.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.5V5Mr STEPHEN SMITH,MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I was misrepresented by the Minister for Ageing during question time. It was the same misrepresentation he made on 13 November and the same misrepresentation the Treasurer made on 14 November, namely that I said the private health insurance rebate was a public policy crime. I make the same correction. What I actually said was that, irrespective of the merits of the private health insurance rebate, it was a public policy crime for the government to introduce it without requiring health or cost outcomes from the private health insurance industry or the private hospital industry. Questions to the Speaker9461946115:39:009461Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister undertook to report to the House on the contents of Senator Coonan's declaration of interest as a minister that was made to him at the end of last year. He said he would report on the detail of her property ownership and residential arrangements and also those of her spouse. He took my question on notice. He said he would report back to the House. He has not done so today. I ask you to follow up with the Prime Minister to make sure that that information is brought to the House's attention at the first available opportunity.9461SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As the member for Werriwa is aware, there is no standing order that obliges me to follow it up, but I am sure that the Prime Minister will note the Hansard and will therefore want to respond to the point made by the member for Werriwa.Documents9461946110000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit reports of 2002-03 entitled Audit ReportNo. 18, Business support process audit—Management of trust monies, and Audit Report No. 19, Performance audit—The Australian Taxation Office's management of its relationship with tax practitioners.Ordered that the reports be printed.Documents9461Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.41 p.m.)—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:That the House take note of the following papers:Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board—Report for 2001-02.Department of Health and Ageing—Report for 2001-02—Erratum.Employment Advocate—Report for 2001-02—Erratum.Freedom of Information Act—Report for 2001-02.Finance—Consolidated financial statements in respect of the year ending 30 June 2002.Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook 2002-03.Health Services Australia—Report for 2001-02.Medibank Private—Statement of corporate intent—2002 to 2005.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Ministerial Statements9461946115:42:009461Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—by leave—In 1996, the coalition went to the Australian people with a very strong commitment to Australia's migration program. On coming to government we moved quickly to ensure that Australia's migration policy and program best suited Australia's national interest and our international responsibilities. This included restoring the integrity of the migration program and community support for it. We have been successful, and remain strongly committed to a managed migration program that benefits all Australians both now and in the future.As members would know, Australia has a long tradition of migration. Indeed, Australia has been built on settlement from other countries. In many ways this has determined the very nature of contemporary Australian society. The six million migrants who have come to Australia since World War II represent 150 different nationalities and 200 different language groups, and practise more than 70 religions. Australia is one of only a few countries in the world that have operated a planned immigration program for over 50 years. Australia has an ongoing humanitarian program which provides for 12,000 new places a year. This financial year, the Australian migration program will be the largest and most highly skilled in over a decade, with a planning level set in the range of 100,000 to 110,000 places. We plan to maintain the program at this level over the next four financial years. The program will continue to be a central contributor to the economic and social development of Australia while helping to ensure that skill shortages do not hold back the Australian economy. Our immigration policies are underpinned by the following essential core values.Firstly, migrant selection is strictly non-discriminatory as far as matters such as race, religion, colour or ethnicity are concerned.Secondly, Australians can be reunited in Australia with their non-Australian partners or dependent children, and in time those persons can become Australian citizens.Thirdly, the overall immigration intake is demonstrably in the national economic interest. If this were not the case, Australia's standard of living would deteriorate, community support for immigration would rapidly diminish, and Australia's capacity to provide a humanitarian program would be reduced.Fourthly, Australia contributes its fair share to the resettlement of those most in need—the principle of international burden sharing. In resettling refugees, the government devotes very considerable resources to ensuring that these people have the support they need to fully participate as members of the Australian community.And last, but by no means least, the government must have the capacity to manage the movement of people across Australia's borders in an orderly and efficient manner.Without this critical capacity, a managed immigration policy rapidly becomes meaningless.In recent years we have experienced changing situations challenging Australia's border integrity.The unauthorised arrivals challengeIn August 2001 Australia was confronted with an unprecedented situation. During the first three weeks of August, some 1,212 unauthorised arrivals entered by boats. There were credible intelligence reports suggesting another 5,000 persons were signed up to travel this way. Unless something was done, there was the potential that more than 8,000 unauthorised arrivals would enter Australia in 2001-02, possibly growing to some 12,000 in 2002-03. This was the size of the total Humanitarian Resettlement Program expected for that year.This would have eliminated Australia's capacity to help the most needy: those who are generally unseen and unheard—the often forgotten refugees who cannot use people smugglers.People smugglers organising these unauthorised boats were well aware that if they could get their `customers' to Australia, be it mainland Australia or its external territories, then under Australian law they would get access to a very comprehensive and generous refugee determination system with:· an expansive interpretation of the Refugees Convention by our courts;· access to medical benefits and income support; and· the support of various NGOs, churches and others who are well meaning in the pursuit of offering assistance.Importantly also, the smugglers could offer the potential for those found to be refugees to obtain lawful residence in Australia. Something had to be done to prevent this growing trend of people smugglers being able to sell their services with such an attractive package of inducements and thus undermine the international system of protection.The Tampa incident clearly demonstrated the strength of the threat to the integrity of Australia's borders. Notwithstanding that the MV Tampa was on a journey headed towards Indonesia and had authority from the Indonesian government to proceed to Merak to disembark the persons it had rescued at sea, the rescuees compelled the captain, under duress, to turn the Tampa around and head to the Australian territory of Christmas Island.The flagrant and threatening demands of these persons to enter Australia without authority were totally unacceptable to the Australian government. We had to take firm action to maintain our ability to manage the movement of people across our borders in an orderly and efficient way.Our responseLegislative measuresAs a result of these challenges, the government introduced a range of legislative measures that were passed by the parliament in September 2001.Members will recall that these measures included:· preventing visa applications from unauthorised arrivals at Christmas Island, the Cocos-Keeling Islands and Ashmore and Cartier Islands while they were in those territories of Australia;· power to move these persons to declared countries, where any asylum claims could be assessed;· power to detain vessels and persons seeking to enter Australia without authority; · a new offshore humanitarian visa system to encourage persons who had, or could seek effective protection in a country of first asylum to remain in that country; and· minimum sentences for people smugglers.These changes are fully consistent with Australia's international obligations.The parliament also passed measures that the government had proposed earlier to address the high number of visa applicants who were using Australia's judicial review processes to delay their removal from Australia.Central to these measures is the introduction of a privative clause, which widens the lawfulness of visa decisions, thereby reducing the grounds upon which the courts can set aside a visa decision as being unlawful. These limited grounds are intended to enable courts to quickly determine judicial review applications, thereby reducing delays in removal of non-citizens and leading to lower costs to the Australian taxpayer.Historically, the time taken to resolve migration related matters in the Federal Court have been lengthy, with many applicants using the court processes to delay their removal from Australia. The introduction of the privative clause has contributed to markedly reducing these delays. For example, in the 2001-02 financial year the average time to resolve a non-privative clause matter before the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court was almost 190 days. For the same year privative clause matters were resolved in approximately 95 days. That is a very significant change of more than 50 per cent.Other actionsThese legislative measures are one element of the measures that the government has taken. Briefly, other initiatives include:· increased funding to international programs which go to directly assisting refugees and which can be accessed by a range of international organisations;· providing assistance to UNHCR to process asylum claims while persons are in other countries, such as Indonesia—to discourage persons from embarking on the extremely hazardous voyage to Australia;· encouraging greater global and regional cooperation in combating people smuggling activities, such as co-hosting with Indonesia a conference in Bali in February 2002, with a further conference, as outlined by the foreign minister today, scheduled for April 2003;· enhanced visa integrity measures, which have brought about a decline in the number of protection visa applications by persons having entered Australia lawfully; and· continuing onshore compliance activity, which has led to greater location of overstayers and persons breaching visa conditions, which I have outlined in the House before. We have seen a 100 per cent increase in the numbers of locations of overstayers since we came to office.The operation of processing centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea is also part of our comprehensive strategy. Persons who have been taken to these centres have access to appropriate arrangements for refugee determination and, where appropriate, for refugee protection.The centres are run by the International Organisation for Migration IOM, which is known internationally for its care of migrants and asylum seekers. Nearly all the asylum seekers live in airconditioned accommodation, food is culturally appropriate and there is a good range of amenities for the residents. Refugee assessments have been undertaken, in some cases by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and by experienced Australian officials who have applied processes and standards similar to those of the UNHCR.The decisions by countries including Nauru, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand to cooperate with Australia in processing unauthorised boat arrivals and resettling of some of those in need of protection reinforce the commitment of countries in the Asia-Pacific region to working together to combat people-smuggling and illegal migration.All our actions have been fully consistent with Australia's international obligations.Immigration detentionDetention of all unlawful non-citizens, including unauthorised arrivals, remains a key element of effective immigration control.It is essential for safeguarding the Australian community while identity, security and health checks are undertaken and while a person's claims to remain in Australia are assessed. This has been recognised by successive governments since its introduction in 1992. An important part of effective border control is the ability to remove persons with no right to remain in Australia—immigration detention ensures those persons are available for removal.The large influx of unauthorised boat arrivals presented challenges in the provision of a safe and secure detention environment. Further challenges were presented by a very demanding detainee population who had false expectations, often arising from misinformation provided by people smugglers, which sometimes led to rioting and attempts to enter the Australian community.Sheer numbers of unauthorised arrivals and misbehaviour of course should not be the reasons for the removal of immigration detention—to do so would demonstrate to people smugglers that they can control our immigration policies and programs.There has been a large decrease over the last year in the overall numbers of people in immigration detention. In November 2001 there were some 3,400 people detained in immigration detention facilities in Australia, of whom 748 were children. This represented a reduction from the historically high number of 3,721 people who were in detention in August of that year.As at 21 November 2002 there were only 1,282 people in detention, of whom fewer than 600 were unauthorised boat arrivals—I might even say a little over 500. Of these, there are 139 children under the age of 18. That is, less than 20 per cent of the number detained 12 months ago. Of these 139, seven are residing at the Woomera Residential Housing Project. Seventeen are unaccompanied minors, of whom 12 are in foster care or alternative detention arrangements in the community. Only five remain in detention centres. Most of those five have been detained as a result of recent compliance action by the department.One hundred of the children in detention are school aged. Forty-nine currently attend either government or non-government schools in the community. This does not include the five primary school-aged children at Woomera who recently began attending a non-government school at Roxby Downs two days a week.The main impediments to children attending schools in the community are the views of state education authorities and local communities. A constructive role the Labor opposition might play would be to talk to some of their colleagues in state government—after all, they are in government in eight locations—and seek their cooperation in relation to achieving those outcomes.This decline in young people and others held in detention is a result of the halting of unauthorised boat arrivals since December 2001, the release from detention of those found to be owed protection and the removal from Australia of those found not to be owed protection.The government has worked hard to reduce the time taken to reach decisions on applications for protection visas and thus the time that unauthorised arrivals spend in detention. Not only have processing times by my department been reduced considerably but, as at 21 November 2002, there were only 13 detainees awaiting a primary decision by my department, only four of whom were unauthorised boat arrivals. The delay in making primary decisions in relation to those 13 detainees primarily relates to protracted identification, security and character issues. Within the mandatory detention framework and consistent with the Migration Act, the government is continuing to take innovative approaches to alternative places of detention that meet the objectives of having people available for processing and, if required, removal.It was to this end that I commissioned the residential housing trial at Woomera last year. The trial, although very costly, has been a success, and I have agreed to expand the eligibility criteria for children and women who wish to participate in the residential housing trial so that those cases that have proceeded beyond primary and merits review stage may also be considered. I have also given approval for compelling cases or those with special needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis for release into other alternative places of detention. There are numbers of people who are in that circumstance now and have been over a period of time.I have also raised with the South Australian government options for the development of a residential housing project in either Port Augusta or Whyalla. Community consultations will take place if agreement in principle can be achieved between Premier Rann and people like Mayor Baluch of Port Augusta.Within the framework of mandatory detention, some time ago I requested my department to develop further flexible detention arrangements to cater for detainees with special needs, such as women and children. These arrangements build on the success of the Woomera residential housing trial for those families with children. These detention arrangements enable individual needs to be addressed while maintaining the effective controls that immigration detention provides. Guidelines for these arrangements have been issued, and I am going to table them today for the information of members.Those flexible detention arrangements build on processes which were put in place earlier this year when most unaccompanied minors at the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre were removed to alternative places of detention, including foster care, under special arrangements with the South Australian child welfare agency.Formal guidelines for unaccompanied minors have now been developed at my request, which should ensure that, except in exceptional circumstances, all unaccompanied minors in detention will be moved quickly to an alternative place of detention. I am also tabling a copy of the guidelines that are applied for determining those matters for the information of members.As at 22 November 2002, there were only two children—both 17—in a detention centre in Australia of whom I am the guardian. In addition, at this date, there are another three children in detention centres whom my department would normally treat for care and monitoring purposes as unaccompanied minors. One of these children is in the care of other family members—that is, other than their parents—and the other two are not covered by the relevant enactment due to their immigration status on arrival in Australia.In examining alternative detention arrangements, the government has to give due weight to issues of financial, economic and social cost and the consequences in any assessment of alternative arrangements. These arrangements need to be assessed carefully on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the special needs of the individuals concerned and the ability of the government to responsibly respond.The results: a year later (October 02)Success of Pacific solutionI would like to inform the House of the results a year later. Firstly, because it has often been brought into question, I will address the issue of the success of the Pacific solution. It has never been claimed that the Pacific solution was the only approach that should be taken; our approach has always been to adopt a range of initiatives, all of which we think contribute to deterring unauthorised boat arrivals. Since September last year, some 1,515 unauthorised arrivals have been taken to Nauru and Manus in Papua New Guinea for processing of their asylum claims. To date, 1,497 cases have been determined—736 have been determined to be refugees and 761 not to be refugees. Of those determined to be refugees, to date some 310 people with family links to Australia have been granted temporary protection in Australia, 202 have been resettled in New Zealand and 14 in Sweden. There have been ongoing discussions with a range of other countries, including Canada and certain Scandinavian countries, which have agreed in principle to assist in the resettlement of the remaining refugees.The vast majority—619—of the 761 rejected asylum seekers were Afghans. Others included 105 Iraqis and 37 from other nationalities. On 16 May, I signed an agreement with the Afghan administration on the voluntary return of Afghans who have not engaged Australia's protection obligations. We were one of the first governments to do that. A number of other governments have since that time put in place such agreements. That agreement, which provided for voluntary return of Afghans who had not engaged our obligations, has led to some 470 people taking advantage of our reintegration assistance package. As at 20 November 2002, 155 Afghans have returned to Afghanistan under those arrangements, and we anticipate a further 110 to 120 Afghans leaving Nauru during this month. The pace in relation to being able to facilitate those returns is not a matter of our doing. Rather, it is the capacity of the Afghan Embassy in Australia to issue appropriate documents after initiating their own inquiries, which have often involved them having to visit Nauru and seek information from Afghanistan.To further assist in this voluntary repatriation process, the Australian government has provided a range of assistance to the Afghan government, including the provision of some $200,000 to facilitate vocational training of returnees, and considerable resources have been devoted to the refurbishment of a reception centre in Kabul, the Jangalak Centre, to assist returnees in their reintegration process. I have accepted an invitation from the foreign affairs minister of Afghanistan's interim administration to participate in the opening of the centre, which will hopefully be in the new year.This reintegration program for Afghans is being seen as a model for other countries and regions of the world.The results of our regional cooperation agreement with Indonesia, which funds the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation for Migration to process asylum seekers in Indonesia, has also resulted in a reduction in the number of asylum seekers that would have reached Australia's shores.From 1999 to 31 October 2002, 3,830 people had been interdicted en route to Australia and placed under the care of the International Organisation for Migration under the informal regional cooperative arrangements that Indonesia, the International Organisation for Migration and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have in place.Of those, 910 had been recognised through processing undertaken by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as refugees in need of protection and who are available for resettlement.Some 389 have been resettled from Indonesia at this point in time. Ten countries have been involved in that resettlement, with 89.4 per cent going to countries other than Australia.In addition, the International Organisation for Migration has facilitated 512 voluntary returns to countries of origin, mainly Afghanistan and Pakistan.Under similar arrangements that were put in place with Cambodia, 248 people, including seven crew of the vessel that was interdicted en route to Australia, were placed under the care of the International Organisation for Migration. Of those, 14 had been recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as in need of resettlement, and the International Organisation for Migration has facilitated the return of 234 voluntary returnees to countries of origin. In that case most of them were from Pakistan. We have had just over 15 months since any boat organised by people smugglers and carrying groups of unvisaed persons has arrived in Australia. We have also had about 12 months since any substantial attempt to enter Australian waters has been made. One wonders why in those very changed circumstances, particularly when processing is not occurring onshore, there is so much preoccupation with detention.By any measure, this comprehensive strategy has been successful. There are many countries around the world that would like to be in the position we are in, having achieved that outcome.However—and in my view, most importantly—it has stopped people risking their lives in dangerous journeys organised by people smugglers. I lament very much that many people have lost their lives tragically, putting themselves in the hands of people smugglers. Perhaps there were many whom we have never known were travelling and are perhaps lost. That was certainly the case I think 2½ or three years ago when there were suggestions that some vessels that were destined for Australia left and were not seen again.As a consequence, visa processing costs have been significantly contained. People have suggested that, because we devoted some additional resources to having people processed offshore in Nauru and Manus, that was not a good investment. Let me make the point: the protection visa processing on the Australian mainland costs in the order of $125 million, as against $190 million provided in the 2001 budget. We expect a saving of some $65 million as a result of containing the movement to Australia. A further saving of $85 million is likely for onshore processing of unauthorised boat arrivals. That has been announced in the context of the 2002-03 budget.Processing at processing centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru was $112 million, as against the provision of $159 million in the budget for 2001-02. Given that there have been no new unauthorised boat arrivals for over 12 months, processing costs are expected to reduce considerably in the year 2002-03 and to continue to reduce in subsequent years.It can be seen that the offshore processing regime has been very beneficial economically and in budget terms. It has reduced the incentive of people smugglers being able to assure their potential clients that they would be able to get to Australia's mainland processing where they would receive a more generous result, as well as access to income support services. It has enabled us to have an offshore humanitarian program of over 12,000 places in the year 2002-03—the highest for some years.ConclusionThe initiatives taken by the government since August last year have resulted in the government enhancing its ability to manage an orderly immigration program to the national benefit.These initiatives contribute to Australia continuing to have economic and social capacity to put into practice the nation's commitment to assist those at greatest risk.We have expended considerable effort and resources in ensuring that protection is provided to those who need it, the work of people smugglers is defeated, and those not in need of protection returned to their home country. We have been prepared to do this in the face of very considerable criticism.Why have we been prepared to do that? Firstly, because we believe that this approach `saves lives'. It removes the incentive for people to leave places of protection and to risk their lives in dangerous journeys with people smugglers. Secondly, it provides us with the capacity and resources to assist those refugees we cannot see and whose voices are not heard—refugees who have no capacity to move, who cannot afford a people smuggler and whose only prospect of a durable solution, given the danger that they might well be in, is resettlement.I was recently in Tanzania. I visited the UNHCR's refugee camps at Lukole and was shown the clear potential for the successful repatriation of many people to Burundi. But I also came away with the very clear picture of a limited number of refugees within the total caseload who will never be able to return to or integrate with the community in Burundi or stay where they are. These are people for whom the UNHCR has said resettlement is the only option available. I have come face to face, in other camps and places, with sizeable numbers of refugees in similar circumstances. International efforts to assist refugees require practical strategies—strategies which marshal and focus all the available resources of nations for the benefit of those most in need. The government has adopted policy positions that allow Australia both to meet our protection obligations towards refugees who require protection and to continue to resettle some of those who do not have the choice of arriving here without authority. Annually, we have made 12,000 places available to assist those most at risk. This number has been set after taking into account our capacity and resources to provide humanitarian protection. In recent years, the pressure of large numbers of unauthorised arrivals has reduced that capacity to resettle from offshore the full 12,000 places. We needed to take the action that we have in order to ensure that we can continue to assist those most at risk.I do not suggest that this has been an easy choice to make. I understand the compassion that draws focus and attention to asylum seekers whom we see and hear, those who arrive on our shores. But I reiterate that Australians, as compassionate people, have to be prepared to make hard choices. We may feel sorry for all people in less fortunate circumstances, but we cannot help all of those who seek our help. We have to make choices and, to retain community support for a resettlement program, we have to be able to effectively manage our borders to ensure that those most in need of assistance are able to obtain it. I present copies of the migration series instruction Nos 370 and 371 and a copy of the following ministerial statement:Managing Migration—Ministerial Statement, 3 December 2002.Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney—Attorney-General) (4.18 p.m.)—I move:That the House take note of the paper.Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney—Attorney-General) (4.18 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms Gillard speaking for a period not exceeding 35 minutes.Question agreed to.16:18:009468Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Due to a Steve Bracks induced cold as a result of doing how-to-votes on the weekend, I doubt whether I am capable of speaking for 35 minutes, but I am grateful for the opportunity to respond. Today's `ministerial statement' should really have been styled a `ministerial response'. Why is the statement being released today? I do not think there is any doubt that it is being released today because it is today that Labor's new policy `Protecting Australia and protecting the Australian way' went to our Labor Party caucus for consideration. That is why we are here listening to a ministerial statement today.In terms of the content, why is this statement being released at all? I do not think there is any mystery about that either. This statement is being released as a result of the amendment that Labor moved to the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002. For the information of honourable members, I will remind them of that amendment. That amendment was to introduce into the Migration Act a new section 197D, which would have compelled the government to release any unaccompanied child from high-security detention. Then there was the introduction into the Migration Act by that amendment of a new section 197E, which was aimed at compelling the government to have children with family members live in detention accommodation akin to the Woomera alternate detention trial. Those amendments were moved in August.When those amendments were moved, the response from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs—and, indeed, from the Prime Minister—was to suggest that the amendments were ridiculous, would cause major problems and would cause endless litigation and the like. I note, for example, that the minister for immigration claimed that the definition of `unaccompanied detained child' used by Labor in those amendments would lead to litigation—indeed, endless litigation. In fact, we now find with this statement today that the government is defining `unaccompanied detained children' by reference to the same act that Labor used in its definition—that is, by reference to the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946. So an idea from Labor about how to define `detained children', viewed as ridiculous by the government at the time, is now incorporated. Then we had no less than the Prime Minister hitting the radios to tell the Australian people: We have tried the idea of having them out in the community with their mothers and the reaction has been that they don't want to be separated from their fathers. And if you put the whole family out the danger is they just melt into the community ...... ... ...... our view remains that if you go beyond having your mother and children then you do run the risk that people abscond ...So we had a reaction from the government to suggest that moving family groups, extending the Woomera alternate detention trial, would in some way breach security.What has changed between August, when Labor moved this amendment and when the government response was that it should not even be considered, and today, when we have a ministerial statement which has picked up large parts of Labor's proposal? I can tell you quite simply what has changed. A number of Liberal moderates indicated to refugee advocacy groups, the minister for immigration and, if the press is to be believed, the Prime Minister that, if the government took no steps to remedy the circumstances of children in detention, they would seriously consider crossing the floor and voting for Labor's amendment. The only reason we are here today is that, in response to those threats from some Liberal moderates, the government thought it had better act before the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 and Labor's amendment come on for full debate next week.I want to say to Liberal moderates who were actually concerned about these issues that there is good cause to be concerned—very good cause to be concerned. Yesterday in question time I raised with the minister the finding of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in relation to a complaint brought by Mr Mohammed Badraie on behalf of his young son Shayan. I think the case is familiar to most of us, from the Four Corners episode which dealt with the disturbing condition this child was in as a result of his experiences in detention. Yesterday Minister Ruddock did not know anything about this report. I suspect that by today he does. When people read this report—and it is a lengthy one—they will see that it is a disturbing litany of what goes wrong when children are held in high-security detention. I do not intend to take the House through it in detail today, but let me say this. The recommendations find, on the basis that this child's human rights were breached, that a figure of $70,000 in compensation needs to be paid and that apologies need to be extended to this child and his family in writing by the minister on behalf of the minister's department. When you read this report and come to the recommendations, you have no option but to conclude that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has got it right. Indeed, Labor has had it right from Australia Day, when it called for children to be brought out from behind the razor wire. I seek leave to table that report.Leave not granted.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—The statement made today was lengthy. As distributed, it was 14 pages; as people are aware, it took some time to read. Out of the 14 pages, there are actually three that deal with new initiatives—three in 14 pages. The rest is a work of self-congratulation about what has been done in the past. The three paragraphs that actually deal with potential new policy read as follows:To this end I commissioned the Residential Housing Trial at Woomera last year. The trial, though costly, has been a success. I have agreed to expand the eligibility criteria ...It goes on for a sentence or two to talk about the expansion of the eligibility criteria. That is paragraph No. 1 out of a 14-page statement that includes something new. Paragraph No. 2 out of a 14-page statement that includes something new states: I have also raised with the South Australian Government options for the development of a Residential Housing Project in Port Augusta or Whyalla. Community consultations will take place if agreement in principle is achieved with Premier Rann and Mayor Baluch. That is not so much an announcement of new policy as a suggestion that, if they manage to progress something with the state government to in principle agreement, they will further consult with the community. Out of three action paragraphs in this 14-page statement, one is about expanding eligibility for a trial and one is about engaging in a process which might ultimately lead to community consultations about something that they might do. The other action paragraph in this 14-page statement indicates that the minister will issue guidelines—and he has issued them today—about getting unaccompanied minors out of detention. What does this all amount to? It is 14 pages, a 35-minute contribution to the House. All it amounts to is the following. The government is issuing a migration series instruction so that unaccompanied minors will not be in high-security detention. Let us hold that up against the test of Labor's amendment—the amendment that actually provoked this statement today—and see whether it passes the test. In terms of it passing the test, let me say the following. Firstly, the problem with the migration series instruction is, of course, that it does not give you the security or certainty of a law. Labor was trying to change the Migration Act to make it standing long-term policy that unaccompanied children could not be held in high-security detention. I would say to Liberal moderates who were attracted to voting for Labor's amendment that they would really need to think through whether something that has the status of a migration series instruction is good enough to deal with such a major issue.Let me also say that, when viewed against the policy proposals Labor has in this area, the proposal being advanced by the minister is nowhere near good enough. The policy proposals that were presented to Labor caucus today and have been endorsed by Labor's shadow cabinet actually deal with two very big things that this policy statement— this ministerial statement—does not deal with at all. One is that this ministerial statement does not deal with most children who are in detention. Most children who are in detention are actually detained on Nauru or in Papua New Guinea in accordance with the so-called Pacific solution. Minister Ruddock went through the number of children in Australian detention, but he forgot to tell us about the 38 on Manus Island and the 149 in Nauru. Nothing contained in this statement affects the circumstances of those children at all. Viewed against the backdrop of Labor's policy as being discussed by our caucus at the moment, this is an insufficient response. Any child—whether here in Australia or whether subject to the Pacific solution— should have their rights and their circumstances considered; this ministerial statement simply does not do so.This ministerial statement leaves untouched another policy issue that Labor feels is very important, and that is the question of the guardianship of unaccompanied children. Formally, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs is the guardian of unaccompanied children. There clearly is a conflict of interest or, at the very least, a perception of a conflict of interest, and we believe that ought to be addressed by moving the guardianship to an appropriate other entity. Under Labor's suggestion, that entity would be the children's commissioner which Labor policy would introduce to deal with children's issues broadly from the perspective of the federal government. Now let us move to that part of the statement which deals with accompanied children—that is, children who are here in family groups. Is this statement sufficient? Once again, let me remind you that most children in detention will not be touched by this statement, because most children in detention are detained on Manus Island and Nauru. The proposal here is that only women and children—no male family members and no older male children—are allowed to move to the alternate detention accommodation that is dealt with in the statement. Labor believe that that is simply insufficient. We believe that it is insufficient to separate families. I note that the Immigration Detention and Advisory Group, which advises the minister on these questions, has been the author of publicity indicating that that is insufficient. It says that there are no security or other reasons why something like the alternate Woomera detention trial should not be used for whole family groups, intact family groups and family groups with fathers. Our suggested amendment to the Migration Act actually deals with whole family groups; this ministerial statement does not. This ministerial statement does not canvass anything further than high-security detention in compounds as we know them, like Baxter and Woomera, and fairly highly secure detention in the form of the alternate Woomera detention trial. No other options are canvassed and, as the minister would be aware, Labor's policy canvasses options like supervised hostel arrangements. Once again, the government's plan is insufficient to meet the needs of children and family members.At the time of the next election, Australians will have a choice between the government's ad hoc Pacific solution and a better plan to protect Australia and the Australian way. This plan will be announced and advocated by Labor. Liberal moderate members of this House—indeed, moderate members of the National Party and moderate members of the government generally—have a choice to make far earlier than that, though. They have an opportunity next week, when this House debates the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 and Labor's amendment, to work out what they are prepared to stand for. I say to those Liberal moderates: if your pressure on the government has already resulted in this statement, then that is a small step forward but you should keep the pressure on the government to take a bigger step forward. Labor's amendment contains a bigger step forward. It contains legislative certainty so that unaccompanied children will not be held in high-security detention. We will be calling on moderate members of the government to ensure that something as big and as significant as the plight of unaccompanied children is dealt with by legislation with some certainty and security rather than in some other way. We will be calling on them to seriously consider voting for Labor's amendment, given the security that it offers.I say to moderate members of the government: if you believe, as I do, that it is important to keep family units together and if you believe, as I do, that our nation has learnt some very bitter lessons in the past about the consequences of separating families—and particularly separating children from family members—then we have learned about the importance of family integrity and keeping family members together as a unit. I also say to moderate members of the government: if you believe that fathers are as equal as mothers in a family and if you believe that older brothers are as equal as sisters in a family, then you have to say that the proposal that has been put forward by the minister today is insufficient. In making that assessment, you can be reassured that you are not causing any security issues, because the government's own Immigration Detention and Advisory Group believes that there are no security issues with putting whole family groups in detention accommodation like the alternate Woomera detention trial.I say to Liberal moderates: if you believe that families should be kept together, then keep the pressure on the government to keep moving forward. Keep the pressure up by indicating that you still intend to support Labor's amendment to the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, which this House will have an opportunity to vote on as early as next week.Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance9471947110000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Werriwa proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's failure to uphold proper standards of ministerial conduct.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—16:36:009472Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Today we have seen the true face of the Howard government. We have seen a minister for taxation, the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, who has been party to tax avoidance of $50,000 in state land tax; a minister for taxation who has consistently misinformed the parliament about the nature of her family company, Endispute, and her involvement with that company; a minister for taxation who has more conflicts of interest than most people have had hot lunches; and, worst of all, a Prime Minister who does nothing about it—a Prime Minister whose only defence is to talk about feminism. Who would have thought that that would be John Howard's final defence? You know it is his last defence when he is talking about feminism—you just do not hear it. It is like the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations talking about child support—you just do not hear it; it is just not credible. The Prime Minister has done nothing about this breach of decent ministerial standards. He has done nothing about the clear breaches of his ministerial code of conduct. The Prime Minister is good at talking the language of empathy. Whenever he is in a tight spot politically, whenever something has gone wrong, he says that he is sympathetic to people, that he can emphasise with the cause of battlers in this country. How about a bit of empathy for Australian taxpayers? How about a bit of empathy for Australian taxpayers who fork out $200 billion every year in revenue to this government?This is the highest taxing government in Australia's history. Forget about Whitlam, forget about Fraser, forget about Hawke and forget about Keating; the Howard government is the highest taxing government in Australia's history. So wouldn't you think the Howard government would have a minister for taxation who sets a good example for other taxpayers? Wouldn't you think the government would have a minister for taxation who is honest, open and transparent and who does the right thing in the payment of her taxes? Wouldn't you think she would set a good example for the honest, hardworking PAYE taxpayers in Australia who face a bigger and growing burden under this government?The problem we have with the highest taxing government in Australia's history is that it has a Treasurer who has never seen a tax he did not like. That is the problem with Peter Costello, the Treasurer—he has never seen a tax he did not like. There is the gun tax, the sugar tax, the terrorism tax, the Timor tax, a ticket tax, a milk tax and, of course, a goods and services tax. It is a taxathon under this government for everyone bar the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, Senator Coonan. She entered into an arrangement with her husband, Mr Rogers, to avoid state land tax and capital gains tax. How did they do this? The proposition, the scam, was quite simple. In New South Wales you do not pay land tax on your principal place of residence, but you do pay land tax on properties other than your principal place of residence if they are valued at more than $220,000. So Senator Coonan entered into an arrangement with Andrew Rogers to separate their principal places of residence, even though they both live at Rosemont Avenue, Woollahra. Senator Coonan owns 6 Rosemont Avenue, Woollahra. Andrew Rogers owns 16 Paradise Avenue, Pittwater, but it is used as the weekender for Coonan and Rogers. So their scam: for Coonan to say that her principal place of residence is in Woollahra and for Rogers to say that his principal place of residence is in Pittwater—the illusion, the scam, of a married couple living apart, even though every person in Sydney, particularly the high society in the eastern suburbs, knows that this is a scam and a complete falsehood.Rogers even went as far as enrolling himself at Paradise Avenue, Pittwater, in March 2001. There has been trouble in paradise for him ever since, because he has been caught out. Poor old Andrew Rogers—this former Supreme Court judge, this person the Prime Minister says is of the highest integrity and standards—has been rearranging his life ever since this matter was raised in the Senate last month. A few weeks ago, the financial affairs of Senator Coonan were raised in the Senate and, ever since, this man of high standing has been totally rearranging his life—trying to put the jigsaw puzzle back together retrospectively. He has had to change his enrolment. Last week he decided he would re-enrol at the house at Woollahra. Just yesterday Andrew Rogers decided, for the first time in four years, that he would actually pay state land taxes. He is a born-again taxpayer. Rogers is a born-again taxpayer simply because the Labor Party raised in the Senate these matters in relation to Senator Coonan. The truth is that he could not have been in this tax avoidance for four years unless it was by arrangement with Senator Coonan, because there would have been no point in falsely having his principal place of residence at Pittwater unless she had been willing to comply with it and say that her principal place of residence is at Woollahra. So let us not have any of this humbug from the Prime Minister and his barrackers that somehow it is a question of feminism—it is not; it is a question of honesty; it is a question of ministerial standards.It was given away in the joint statement that was issued by Senator Coonan at 9.30 last night. When the place is going to bed, when the gallery is going to bed, and a statement is issued you know the minister is in deep trouble. What did that statement reveal? It revealed that the Coonans had not paid their land tax for 1999, 2000, 2001 and for all of 2002 up until yesterday—four years of land tax avoidance on their property at Pittwater. But as if it was not bad enough to have a statement at 9.30 last night, under the cover of darkness in the Press Gallery, there was also a special statement from Andrew Rogers. I will read it to the House.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—It was short.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—In fact, it was a very short statement. He said:I contacted the Office of State Revenue on November 18, 2002 ...What is special about that date? It is the date on which Senator Coonan's financial affairs were raised in the Senate. The born-again taxpayer discovered honesty and integrity the day these matters in relation to Senator Coonan's financial affairs were raised in the Senate. In his statement, he said:I contacted the Office of State Revenue—the first time in four years—on November 18, 2002 and informed them of my changed arrangements.He went on:I received a land tax assessment from the Office of State Revenue on November 29, 2002—last Friday—and paid the assessed land tax on December 2, 2002.Yesterday. So that is the truth of it: he paid the taxes only because Labor raised the matters in the Senate.If he claims that he lived at Pittwater—and that has been his claim for four years—and that Paradise Avenue, Pittwater, was his principal place of residence, why does he have to pay the taxes? If it is true that Pittwater has been his principal place of residence throughout 2002, no land tax is assessable—no land tax needs to be paid. So this is an admission of guilt—a retrospective admission of guilt. The man of honour and integrity—the born-again taxpayer—is scrambling and trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again to try to cover up for Senator Coonan. The truth is that they were in it together all the way through. He could only have had this arrangement at Pittwater by arrangement with Senator Coonan, the federal minister for taxation, who collects $200 billion from honest taxpayers around this country. What sort of example is she setting for them? What sort of example does it set for them that the federal minister will not carry her fair share of taxation? What sort of example does it set around this country to have a minister who will not pull her weight in the Australian taxation system?We know that the Rogers and Coonan story does not stand up. How do we know? His story is just fantastic; it is false, and this was revealed in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday. Rogers was phoned at the Woollahra house. He said that:... he lived at the weekender at Pittwater during the Woollahra renovations, and had changed his enrolment accordingly. He was then asked when these renovations had taken place. The Herald reported a spokesperson for Senator Coonan as saying:... the renovations began in September or October 1999 and finished in April 2000, 11 months before Mr Rogers varied his enrolment.He has got the wrong alibi. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and he has been caught out. How do we further know that Rogers has always lived at Woollahra and that this tax scam is an absolute falsehood on the Australian people? The neighbours. The same report in the Sydney Morning Herald states:No one answered the door at the weekender when the Herald called last week. Val Linton-Frost, who lives next door, said it was “very, very rare to see him [Mr Rogers] down there”. Jo Shaw, two doors away, said: “No one lives there permanently. It's a weekender. We rarely see anyone there.”The greatest act of deceit—and where you need to see the truth of the matter—is in their own profile. The Australian Financial Review profile of Senator Coonan in July this year was entitled `A Taxing Woman'. The profile starts:Helen Lloyd Coonan is rattling around the kitchen of her house—in Woollahra, of course—microwaving dinner for her dog, Helga—so the dog is doing all right—while a Handel aria sung by David Hobson floats through a sound system concealed somewhere. Andrew John Rogers—remember, this is the fellow whose principal place of residence is in Pittwater—is nibbling a bowl of plump cherries in the adjacent conservatory ...How the other half lives! You might have plump cherries and conservatories in the electorates of Warringah and Wentworth—the posh suburbs of Sydney—but the ordinary battling taxpayers pay their taxes and don't even get the plump cherries in the conservatory on the way through. In the profile, Rogers chats about the marriage with Coonan, and his great pride in his wife—not in a woman he lives apart from—living in the house in Woollahra. The profile goes on:As the sun sets through the trees surrounding their big friendly house in Sydney's eastern suburbs ... the couple rib each other about finances.I bet they did! I bet they ribbed each other about finances, as in, `Helen, isn't it good we're dodging land tax? Isn't it good that we've not only got the plump cherries in the conservatory but we've outsmarted the New South Wales government and we're not paying a single cent over a four-year period in land tax?' I bet you they were ribbing each other. The profile goes on:Coonan comes to the table, laughing but a tad defensive. “It's great to be comfortable ... [My greatest extravagance] is personal grooming and good wine ... We travel well.But listen to this concession:Some moderation is appropriate because it's part of my background ... to be too extravagant can verge on [the] obscene.”I will tell you what is obscene: a minister who will not pay her taxes and who enters into a false residential arrangement with her husband to avoid paying state land tax. The July profile goes on, with Rogers talking about Coonan:“We live in each other's skin. We have the same interests: the dog, travel, and people.Note they said `the dog', not two dogs. There is not a dog in Pittwater and a dog in Woollahra, just `the dog'—who does that remind you of?—`travel and people'. Finally, Rogers and Coonan say:The weekender at Clareville on Sydney's Pittwater has not been visited this year—They are condemned by their own words. How do we further know about the tax avoidance? In the annual returns for Endispute, Andrew Rogers, as the company secretary, lists his address at Woollahra. If you look up the Sydney phone book—I should have brought it into the chamber—you see that it says: Andrew Rogers, 6 Rosemont Avenue, Woollahra. He owned up to his guilt as he tried to unscramble the egg last week, telling the Australian Electoral Commission, `Hang on; wait a sec. Labor has raised the matter in the Senate; I had better return my enrolment to Rosemont Avenue, Woollahra.' And then we even have Steve Price, on 2UE. I did an interview with Steve Price this morning. He was very interested in this idea that Rogers lived up at Pittwater, because he said to me that he was talking to Rogers and Coonan at a social function in Sydney last Friday, and they were talking proudly about their home in Woollahra. So everyone knows the truth. You do not need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out what has been going on. It is a tax dodge. It is a minister in an arrangement with her husband to avoid land tax on their property at Pittwater. Everyone knows it, apparently bar the Prime Minister. It is no wonder the Prime Minister believes in Santa—and you might as well throw in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Loch Ness Monster. If the Prime Minister believes for a moment that Senator Coonan has not been avoiding her tax, the next thing he will tell you is that he bumped into Elvis down at the Woden shops the other day. This is a fellow who believes in Santa Claus, and he obviously believes—he is the only person who does—that somehow Andrew Rogers has actually lived at this Pittwater residence. In fact, it is a cover-up. It is a cover-up where one consultant to Clayton Utz is looking after another. Rogers works as a consultant to Clayton Utz—the job that Howard had! You talk about the insiders, the elites, the Liberal Party club: they are all in on it. It is one consultant at Clayton Utz looking after another.Earlier, you had the Prime Minister saying he had been assured by Rogers, through another person—it sounds like a seance—that Rogers was trying to do the right thing when it came to Senator Coonan's ministerial interest. It does not add up. Land tax and also capital gains tax are being avoided. On the question of capital gains tax on the Pittwater property, today's Sydney Morning Herald reads as follows:... Mr Rogers told the Herald at the weekend that the property had been bought by a family trust in 1979 and then by him in about 1993.So the property would have also been eligible for capital gains tax payment when it was sold. Rogers has been trying to avoid that with his false enrolment and his false residential arrangements. Rogers lives at Woollahra. He should pay land tax on the Pittwater property and he should pay capital gains tax when it is sold. It is only by arrangement with Senator Coonan that this matter has come to the House's attention. The senator is damned by the confessions of guilt that have been placed on the table here today. It is only by arrangement with her that this tax avoidance has taken place, and she stands condemned—as does the Prime Minister for failing to uphold decent standards in the parliament, failing to uphold ministerial standards and failing to uphold his own ministerial code of conduct. (Time expired)16:51:009475Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The member for Werriwa may well believe what he has just told the House but plainly the opposition does not. If the opposition believed any of this, there would be a censure motion. What we have heard from the member for Werriwa is the censure that wasn't. This was to be the big day when `Latham QC' demonstrated his great forensic skills to this House and more particularly demonstrated his great forensic skills to his own back bench. Having listened to `Latham QC' do his best to his colleagues and his worst to Senator Coonan and to Andrew Rogers, I have this advice for the member for Werriwa: stick to taxi drivers, mate! Taxi drivers apparently can be belted with impunity in New South Wales thanks to the sorry state of law and order in New South Wales under the Carr government. The fact is, the Assistant Treasurer will get a good defence from this government because she has done absolutely nothing wrong.It has been very interesting watching events unfold in the House this afternoon at question time. First of all, we saw a certain amount of glee from members opposite as they thought, `Aha! Today we're going to have a little bit of sport at the expense of Senator Helen Coonan.' But very soon, as the attack led by `Latham QC' ran into the sands, the looks of glee quickly became looks of terrible gloom as the opposition realised that, yet again, the big attack on the government had foundered; until, as time went by, the member for Werriwa floundered more and more obviously, who should start to perk up? The member for Lilley perked up, the member for Griffith perked up, the member for Melbourne perked up and the whole leadership team—the would-be leadership team—the pygmies in a crowd of dwarfs, all started to perk up as they watched the member for Werriwa's attack turn out to be absolutely nothing at all. Let us look at exactly what has been alleged by the member for Werriwa and, at various stages, by the Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting how the member for Werriwa has been on a total and utter frolic of his own today, supported only by the Leader of the Opposition, who is too weak to resist him. What did the member for Werriwa allege? He alleged that former Justice Andrew Rogers was falsely enrolled. The fact is, Andrew Rogers leads a peripatetic existence. He is often overseas. He is often interstate. He does not have to be constantly at Clareville to be legitimately enrolled there. He alleged that Andrew Rogers had not paid his land tax. Andrew Rogers has paid his land tax. He has told us that. The member for Werriwa accepts that Rogers has paid his land tax. He said that Rogers did not pay capital gains tax. The most basic lesson that `Latham QC' should have known is that you only pay capital gains tax when there is a capital gain, when there is a sale, when something is disposed of. There has been no sale, no disposal, no realised capital gain and therefore no capital gains tax liability. Go back to school, `Latham QC'!We have had this outrageous statement repeated time and time again—sometimes in the guise of a rhetorical question—that Senator Coonan has somehow witnessed a false enrolment declaration. That is utterly, completely and shamefully false. Members opposite ought to be utterly embarrassed about perpetrating this vicious lie against a decent and good minister of the Crown in this government.We then have the constant claim that Senator Coonan has somehow made a false disclosure. We had the member for Werriwa at the dispatch box waving around various documents which purported to be receipts or invoices from some company that was allegedly trading midyear. So what? Senator Coonan disposed of her interest. She completely and most properly disposed of her interest in this company as soon as she became a minister of the Crown, not as she was utterly required to do under the Prime Minister's guidelines but simply for more abundant propriety and adherence to the principles of good government and honesty that this government has practised.Then of course there was the terrible sin that this company—Endispute, I think its name was—was still registered at a home where Senator Coonan resides. Why should it not be at the place of residence of her independent adult son? Her son is a practising lawyer, an associate with a law firm. Why should it not continue to be registered where Senator Helen Coonan's son lives?Today we have seen an attack by the member for Werriwa, who has no conception whatsoever of modern Australian families. He has no conception whatsoever of the reality of modern life, that husbands and wives can have an independent business existence or that adult children can have a life and an opinion of their own. We on this side believe that women should be judged on their merits, not on their husbands. That is the shameful thing that Labor has been perpetrating here today and the utter humiliation that the member for Werriwa has visited upon the would-be proud feminists of the ALP. Where was the member for Fremantle? I think she was boycotting the shameful and embarrassing proceedings perpetrated by the member for Werriwa and the Leader of the Opposition today. Why was the member for Throsby complicit in this terrible attack on a modern independent Australian working woman? Why was the member for Lalor not protesting against this embarrassing attack on a modern independent Australian working woman?The simple truth is that this government is not responsible for Andrew Rogers; Andrew Rogers is responsible for Andrew Rogers. Helen Coonan is not responsible for Andrew Rogers any more than Andrew Rogers is responsible for Helen Coonan—they are independent people. They are adults with lives of their own. Why should members opposite come into this chamber and claim that wives or husbands are each other's chattels? That is a 19th century, mid-Victorian attitude. CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—That is what it is like down at trade hall.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—That is right. That is probably exactly what it is like. It is the ALP boys club in action—the shameful ALP boys club which has done such terrible things to the careers of so many decent women who made the mistake of joining the Australian Labor Party and of thinking that they were going to get a fair go there. The most that Senator Coonan is guilty of is an inadvertent mistake. People should not be hung, drawn and quartered on the basis of a few inadvertent mistakes. I recall that members of this parliament, members of good standing, people of high integrity, have made honest mistakes and inadvertent misdisclosures. I recall the member for Batman making an inadvertent misdisclosure. I would be the last person to impugn the member for Batman's integrity and honesty. He is a man of great distinction. The member for Barton was guilty of an inadvertent misdisclosure. These things happen, and we do not hold them against members opposite. Members opposite should have the decency, the sense of honour, the sense of proportion and the sense of place to extend the same benefit of the doubt to members on this side that we typically extend to them.Senator Coonan's real crime in the eyes of the member for Werriwa is twofold. Firstly, she is successful and, secondly, she is a woman. And the boys club over there just do not like it. That is why they come into this parliament sooling, dribbling and salivating. Anyone would think it was a taxidriver that the member for Werriwa had discovered in his late night ravings and rantings and peregrinations around the city. Instead he has now sicked himself on Senator Coonan. All his malice and all the hatred that he so carefully nurtures—the hatred that he believes is the highest virtue of politics—are now turned in the direction of Senator Coonan. I have to say: is there anyone that the member for Werriwa does not have a vendetta against? Is there anyone that he likes? Is there anyone that he has a good word for? I see the member for Lilley coming into the chamber.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—He's very happy. It's a happy day.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—He is very happy because he has seen the member for Werriwa end up with an enormous amount of egg on his face after the member for Werriwa spent the best part of the last fortnight badmouthing the member for Lilley all around the press gallery. The member for Lilley was quite clever—he of all the pretenders to the throne has done nothing to lift his profile. Then the member for Werriwa gets his mate Alan Ramsey to write an endorsement of the member for Lilley, and the rest is history. We all know what the member for Werriwa has been trying to do. Is there anyone that the member for Werriwa does not hate? Is there anyone he is not running some kind of vendetta against? I was amused to read in the Strewth column today of the member for Werriwa's former friend Peter Botsman, the former director of the Evatt Foundation and one of the real intellectuals of the Labor Party. They talk about the sage of Werriwa; Peter Botsman really knows what he is talking about. He is a real thinker. Peter Botsman's books are worth reading; they are readable—unlike anything that is produced by the member for Werriwa.Peter Botsman made the mistake of telling the truth about the member for Werriwa. The member for Werriwa then engaged in a vicious, partisan, untrue campaign of lies against him, including, according to the Strewth column, a whole lot of obscene references to mateship and various other things. He is now out on his ear, as is just about everyone else who has ever crossed paths with the member for Werriwa. It is interesting, isn't it? We have seen a serious Labor leader win, it has to be admitted, a great Labor victory this weekend. The reason Steve Bracks was able to win a significant victory was that, above all else, he comes across as a decent, honest man who is prepared to give even people he does not agree with a fair go. That is how Steve Bracks comes across to the voters of Victoria, and what a contrast it is to this Bonnie and Clyde performance from Simon Crean, the Leader of the Opposition, and the member for Werriwa. Both of them are united in hatred and in spite. They are vicious against success and hate filled against successful women. Nothing could better highlight the contrast between a real Labor leader and what the ALP has in this parliament than the performance today from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Werriwa. The member for Werriwa is the Aunty Jack of Australian politics. If you do not like him, he rips your bloody arms off—that is his view. But I have to say that his big day out has been a complete flop. He has set his leadership ambitions back many months if not forever. We are not going to hear any more on this matter—and I will make this a promise—because nothing wrong has been done. There has been no impropriety. There has been no breach of the law. There has been no breach of the Prime Minister's guidelines. Senator Helen Coonan and her husband are honest people. (Time expired)17:06:009478Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I think that performance by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is a bit rich, given some of the frolics that he has been off on in the last couple of years. One of the first acts of this Prime Minister on coming to office was to release A guide on key elements of ministerial responsibility. What a piece of hubris it was and how quickly he came to rue the day that he ever released it. First he discovered that many of his ministers were not capable of managing their affairs in accordance with that set of guidelines, that code, then, when he discovered that he himself was not capable of managing his own affairs in relation to that code, standards became double standards and responsibility became convenience.The first person to fall foul of Howard's code was the hapless Senator Herron, who was found practising medicine in contravention of the requirement `not to engage in any professional practice or in the daily work of any business'. Not unreasonably, if people are drawing a ministerial salary for looking after a difficult portfolio, they should be required to attend to it full time. Herron was forced to give up his surgery practice but not his portfolio. So from the start a breach of the code did not necessarily mean the sack.The first of the few ministers who have actually lost their job for breaching the code was Jim Short, then Assistant Treasurer. He was forced to resign after he approved an operating licence for an ANZ Bank subsidiary when he had shares in the ANZ Bank. This had contravened the requirement for ministers to `divest themselves of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities'. Jim Short was rewarded for taking his medicine and leaving parliament quietly by being made Australia's executive director at the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, which happens to be in London.John Moore, the industry minister, was next to transgress with a $100,000 shareholding in Bligh Ventures Ltd, a technology investment company, contravening the requirement to divest business interests in any area of portfolio responsibility, and a controlling interest in Ralston Pty Ltd, a share-trading company, in contravention of the express prohibition of operating as share traders. Despite these two breaches, the Prime Minister spared John Moore. An exemption from the code for stockbrokers perhaps, Queenslanders maybe—no, party powerbrokers, I think. The `party powerbroker principle'!Not so lucky was Brian Gibson, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, who exempted a Boral subsidiary from certain provisions of the Corporations Law. He was not a party powerbroker—he went. Small business minister Geoff Prosser knew something about small business: he owned three shopping centres and took an active interest in running them while a minister, in contravention of the requirement not to engage in the daily work of any business. He was not a powerbroker—he got the sack.Ministers were required to `resign directorships in public companies'—but not the Prime Minister. Mr Howard was a director of the Menzies Institute, a public company. The Prime Minister could not live up to his own code. He resigned the directorship. Flexibility was required. The `Prime Minister principle': prime ministers are exempt from the code. There were six critical incidents and three resignations in a little over a year. The code literally went out the window on the next one. Warwick Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy, was found to have, through a family trust, an $8 million share in a coalmine and interests in many other resource stocks. Howard allowed Parer to transfer the assets of his family trust to his children, ignoring the explicit provision that `the transfer of interests to a family member or to a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment'. Later it was also found that the holding company of the Parer family trust had purchased shares in the original Telstra float at a time when Parer was a director of the holding company and held eight of the nine shares—in contravention of a specific prime ministerial proscription on ministers purchasing Telstra shares within 90 days of the float.Notwithstanding the treatment of Short, Gibson and Prosser—and for no other explicable reason than that Parer was a close friend of the Prime Minister—a way round all that had to be found. The `mates principle'! Of course, we should not forget the `brother principle' when the Prime Minister had to bail out his brother's company.After almost a year of controversy over Parer, the Prime Minister quietly tabled a revised code allowing ministers to transfer interests to independent family members and control of interests to an outside professional nominee or trust. If the minister can't keep the rules, change them—the `flexibility principle'! This change has turned out to be very fortuitous for Senator Coonan: it has allowed her to transfer her shares in Endispute to her son.After the Parer case there were no standards. The Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Science and Resources, Warren Entsch, had a company called Cape York Concrete that was found to have won a $175,500 contract from the RAAF.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Bob the builder!83UCox, David, MPMr COX—Bob the builder, yes. He had failed to disclose his directorship of the company in his parliamentary declaration of interests. Entsch was also found to have a conflict of interest in pressing the CSIRO to clean up an area near a Cairns property he owned and advocating a major development nearby. The Prime Minister took no action: the `don't give the opposition a scalp principle'! When the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet, Senator Heffernan, failed to disclose his business interests and directorships, the Prime Minister took no action. The powerbroker principle again. When, as Acting Minister for Communications, Peter McGauran announced a moratorium on Internet gambling and took a bill through the House to implement it—having failed to declare a pecuniary interest in a competing gambling industry, poker machines—the Prime Minister failed to act. The `National Party principle', something that reigned supreme in the Fraser years. When the Minister for Employment Services, Mal Brough, was exposed promoting training courses which were actually being run as party fundraisers, the Prime Minister failed to act. The National Party principle or the `if he's game enough to do that, he ought to be able to get away with it principle'!9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Mal Brough is in the Liberal Party.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—Oh, is he? Then of course there was the telecard affair. On 10 October 2000 the Canberra Times revealed that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Peter Reith, had run up a bill of $50,000 on his taxpayer-funded telecard. The minister had been informed about the bill more than a year earlier. Mr Reith was forced to admit he had given the telecard number and personal identification number to his son. He had not used the card since 1994.After a departmental investigation, Reith claimed only $950 corresponded to calls made by his son. He repaid this amount but refused to accept responsibility for the rest, despite contrary legal advice. Only public pressure, not the Prime Minister's intervention, forced him to repay the $50,000. The Prime Minister had backed Reith throughout the affair and took no action against him. This was under the principle that, if you are big and ugly enough, you can get away with anything. The reward for the Prime Minister was that Reith took responsibility for what the Prime Minister said he was not told about the children overboard affair—the principle that, if you have no principles, you can do anything. That, unfortunately, is the environment in which ministers in the Howard government now operate. Events over the last couple of weeks in relation to the Minister for Revenue, Senator Coonan, have made rather a mockery of the requirement that:Ministers must be honest in their public dealings and should not intentionally mislead the Parliament or the public. Any misconception caused inadvertently should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.The Minister for Revenue has made rather a lot of misleading statements in the last couple of weeks. In that time she has been scrambling to tidy up the loose ends of the issues that have been raised about her.First there was the failure of Endispute to lodge an ASIC return confirming that she had ceased to be a director. It should have been done within 14 days last January; it has now been done. She told the Senate quite categorically on 19 November that Endispute is a shelf company. Today, after the member for Werriwa produced invoices in the House showing it had been trading recently, she was forced to qualify her earlier statement. She now says it was a shelf company when she divested her shares to her son.Then there is the discrepancy in her declaration of pecuniary interests, in which she described her residence at Woollahra as an investment property. This was explained as a typographical error by her personal assistant. First we had core and non-core promises; now discrepancies between pecuniary interest statements can be described as typos. There seems to be a lot of confusion around the residential status of various pieces of property: principal places of residence, weekenders, investment properties. It is all a bit confused and it certainly has not been corrected at the earliest opportunity or at all. Several years of land taxes were paid only yesterday. The minister is scrambling to regularise all her arrangements. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations says she should not be hung for a few inadvertent mistakes. She will be. (Time expired)17:16:009480Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Today during question time when the Prime Minister tabled the electoral enrolments of Andrew Rogers in Pittwater and then Woollahra I looked at the member for Werriwa and the blood drained from his face because he suddenly realised that the case that he had built around electoral fraud and potential tax avoidance had completely come crashing down. I am sure the idea that went through his mind at that time was: `Have I been set up? Have my mates Swanie and Ruddie actually set me up with this? Who came up with this idea? Was it the tactics committee? Am I on the tactics committee? Who came up with the suggestion that I should pursue Helen Coonan's electoral fraud?' There is no other explanation. Sloppy research has not been a hallmark of the member for Werriwa's political career.So what is the explanation for this embarrassing own goal? There has not been such an embarrassing own goal in many years in this parliament. For an opposition to make gross calumnies against a minister of the Crown and not have the evidence in front of them—not have the electoral enrolments themselves when they were claiming that she had witnessed them—is an act of gross, sloppy research. I can only believe that the member for Lilley and maybe the member for Griffith, who is usually a decent person, got together and thought, `He's doing too well. Crikey's saying that the member for Werriwa should be the Leader of the Opposition. We'll have to take him down. We have taken Emerson down. We managed to convince Emerson it was a great idea to send around an email to all the parliamentary caucus saying that the Labor Party was not going anywhere, so we got rid of Emerson.' Not that he was ever in the race from this side of the House.If I were the member for Jagajaga, the member for Melbourne or the member for Brand, I would be starting to seriously wonder whether Francis Urquhart is operating in the background of the Labor Party, maybe out of the chief whip's office, to make sure that all the contenders for Labor leadership are fixed up one by one. K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The matter of public importance is about ministerial standards. Maybe the member for Sturt could spend even 15 seconds defending Senator Coonan; even 15 seconds attending relevantly to the matter of public importance.10000Gambaro, Teresa (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Gambaro)—I thank the member for Werriwa for his point of order and I ask the member for Sturt to come back to the point.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—I will be getting to the defence of Senator Coonan very shortly but I could not resist pointing out what is actually going on in the Labor Party on the frontbench. My friend from Lateline, the member for Werriwa, has so tragically been cut down today. After two weeks of trying to get rid of the member for Lilley, Lilley has finally struck him down today; cut him down in his prime. He might even have been working with Peter Botsman; I am not sure. But he is finished. In terms of his leadership credentials, the member for Werriwa is looking very sad today.Let us turn to the defence of Senator Coonan. Senator Coonan is a very good friend of mine. In fact, I used to share a house with her here in Canberra until she was put into the ministry. She has been the subject of a very unfair, unsubstantiated and very serious allegation; a smear campaign against her by not only the member for Werriwa but many other members of the Labor Party, particularly in the Senate. It is an example of the gutter politics that one expects from the ALP when all else is failing. Simon Crean's leadership is 18 per cent in the Newspoll and suddenly the Labor Party start grasping for straws. They cannot debate us on health policy, they cannot debate us on border protection, they cannot hold a candle to us on economic management. So what do they do? They send the member for Werriwa out there and rather than breaking poor old Mustafa Bashir's arm he will deal with Senator Coonan and take her on. Unfortunately, it has all blown up in his face, like one of those cigars that the Marx Brothers used to give to people.Senator Coonan has not breached the ministerial code of conduct. Senator Coonan has not been involved in any tax avoidance. Senator Coonan has not been involved in any electoral enrolment irregularity. More importantly, the allegations being made against Senator Coonan are actually all directed at Andrew Rogers. Good former Justice Andrew Rogers is really the person who the Labor Party are making these allegations about. By association, we are supposed to believe that Senator Coonan has in fact breached the ministerial code of conduct, been involved in tax avoidance and been involved in electoral fraud.This is like medieval Europe or even 19th century Victorian England, as the Leader of the House pointed out. I cannot believe that in 2002 members of the House of Representatives are arguing that the wife of a person like Andrew Rogers is somehow responsible for everything Andrew Rogers does. This goes to the very heart of what the ALP really believes. Despite all the business about quotas and bringing women into the ALP—it helps, of course, if you are married to a current ALP member or if you are the daughter or son of an ALP member, but I will put that to one side—this says that the real ALP has not changed at all. The ALP is still a boys club. Tammany Hall or Sussex Street are still running the ALP, and the women are really just chattels. They are only there as window dressing on the front bench and the back bench of the ALP around Australia. They are not really making their own decisions—they could not be! Helen Coonan could not seriously make her own decisions; she is a woman and she is married—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—To a man!9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—to a man, so she must be a chattel of her husband. As a consequence, she must be maligned in this terrible way by the member for Werriwa. This is more Calwell than Whitlam. I thought the Labor Party had moved on. I turn to the allegations specifically. There are four of them. One is that Senator Coonan breached the ministerial code of conduct through her involvement with Endispute. Senator Coonan divested herself of her holding in Endispute and passed it to her son, who is an adult—he is 25. A new part of the ALP's policy is apparently that you are not an adult at 25, which will come as a nasty shock to all the people with drivers licences, who can be called up to the army and other things. Apparently Helen Coonan's son is not capable of making his own decisions. She divested herself of her involvement in Endispute, so of course she was not in breach of the ministerial code of conduct. The allegation is that capital gains tax was not paid. That is just sloppy research again, member for Werriwa. You know as well as anybody does, I hope—maybe the Leader of the Opposition does not know, but I would have thought you would have known—that capital gains tax does not apply until you realise a capital gain. No capital gain had been realised. If the property was bought in 1979 and sold in 1993, and it is still in the hands of the person who bought it in 1993 and has not been sold, you know as well as I do that no capital gain has been realised, and there could have been no capital gains tax avoidance.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Maybe that is their new policy!9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Maybe that is it! Maybe you pay the capital gains tax up front! Unrealised capital gains tax is the new Labor policy! Is that what it is? The next allegation is that land tax was not paid. The member for Werriwa himself admitted that the land tax has been paid on the property in Pittwater. More importantly, Senator Coonan has no beneficial interest in the Pittwater property. She owns a property in Woollahra, lucky person. He owns a property in Pittwater, lucky person. But that does not make her responsible for what happens at the house in Pittwater. It has nothing to do with her. She has no beneficial interest. To suggest she does is to suggest that she, as in medieval England, is just a chattel of Andrew Rogers. Knowing them both as well as I do, I am sure that Andrew Rogers would find the idea of Helen Coonan being his chattel at any time very amusing.The final allegation is that Senator Coonan was involved in enrolment fraud. This is a great call from the Labor Party, isn't it? As a former Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the idea of the ALP accusing anybody on this side of the House of being involved in electoral enrolment fraud strikes me as quite amusing. There is no evidence of a bodgie enrolment. The so-called evidence that Senator Coonan witnessed a bodgie enrolment blew up in the Labor Party's face in the most spectacular fashion in question time today. Senator Coonan did not witness any enrolment change from Pittwater to Woollahra or Woollahra to Pittwater. For the Labor Party to claim that they have any moral high ground on electoral enrolment is amusing. One thinks of the Shepherdson inquiry; the loss of Jim Elder; the loss of Grant Musgrove; the loss of Mike Kaiser, the leading light of the Queensland Labor Party; the jailing of Karen Ehrmann; and the suspended sentences handed down to a number of other Queensland ALP figures, for allegations of electoral enrolment fraud. The idea that Labor is in any position to move such a motion amuses me immensely. In conclusion, the hypocrisy of the Labor Party in moving a motion that says anything about ministerial standards says that they have a lot of front. You have to give them that: they have a lot of front.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—More front than Mark Foys!9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—More front than Cox-Foys.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—I said Mark Foys.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—It is Mark Foys in Sydney; in Adelaide it is Cox-Foys—or Harris Scarfe's. More front than Harris Scarfe's in Adelaide!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—What about Carmen Lawrence?9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Carmen Lawrence; Graham Richardson; Alan Griffin; Robert Tickner; Ros Kelly, the most famous one of all—the list of ministerial casualties in the Keating government means that the idea that Labor can tell us anything about ministerial standards is grossly hypocritical. I condemn them for this MPI and put my full support behind the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer.10000Gambaro, Teresa (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Gambaro)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Committees94839483948317:27:009483Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 9 December 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, 9 December 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, 9 December 2002. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows:COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Statement—Annual Review of Australia's relations with the United Nations.The Committee determined that the statement may be made—to conclude by 12.40 p.m.Speech time limit—10 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]2 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Statement—Annual Review of Australia and the World Trade Organisation.The Committee determined that the statement may be made—to conclude by 12.50 p.m.Speech time limit—10 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]3 PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO INDONESIA AND THE 23RD AIPO GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia and the 23rd AIPO General Assembly Vietnam, 1-13 September 2002.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.00 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]4 PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE 171ST SESSION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION: Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the 171st Session of the Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Geneva, Switzerland (23-27 September 2002).The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.05 p.m.Speech time limit—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]5 PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE 48TH COMMONWEALTH PARLIA-MENTARY CONFERENCE: Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the 48th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference Namibia, September 2002.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.10 p.m.Speech time limit—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]6 TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL SERVICES—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report: Moving on Intelligent Transport Systems.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—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Mr ALBANESE: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Governor-General Act 1974 in relation to the annual report prepared under section 19 of the Act, and for related purposes. (Governor-General Amendment Bill 2002—Notice given 14 November 2002.)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes—pursuant to standing order 104A.2 Ms O'BYRNE: to move:That this House:(a) notes the increased risk of illegal entry into Australia from foreign crewed vessels that are now able to spend extended periods on the Australian coast;(b) calls upon the Government to immediately act to review the current security arrangements in relation to foreign seafarers; (c) further notes the threats posed to our coastal environment by flag of convenience vessels. (Notice given 2 December 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 = 4 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 Mr LLOYD: to move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the service and bravery of all Australian veterans involved with the Z Special Unit Forces, including Operation Jaywick during WWII;(2) notes:(a) the upcoming 60th anniversary of Operation Jaywick on 26-27 September 2003;(b) Australia Post's successful and popular policy of producing special issue commemorative stamps; and(c) Australia Post's policy to only recognise anniversaries of 50 years or multiples of 50 years in such commemorative stamp issues; and(3) urges Australia Post to review this policy to enable the issue of a 60th anniversary commemorative stamp series in honour of the veterans of Operation Jaywick. (Notice given 14 November 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.4 Mrs IRWIN: to move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the ongoing effects of emotional deprivation suffered by children placed in institutions prior to the mid 1970's;(2) applauds the public exposure of the misguided policies under which British migrant children and the “stolen generation” of indigenous children were treated and the effects of their treatment in children's institutions evident in adulthood;(3) recognises that Australian children raised in institutions were denied love and affection, that they were separated from siblings, subjected to harsh discipline and suffered physical and sexual abuse;(4) recognises that they were conditioned to perform manual work rather than to pursue higher education or develop high level skills and that they were subjected to a deliberate policy to erase any awareness of their biological parents and family; and(5) calls on the Government to facilitate the full disclosure of the forgotten history of institutionalised children and to respond to the present needs of those generations still suffering the effects of their time in children's institutions. (Notice given 12 November 2002.)Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—5 minutes.First Government 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.Miscellaneous948417:28:009484Gambaro, Teresa (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Gambaro)10000PON/A10—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 4 December 2002, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous948417:28:009484Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—by leave—I move:That the following bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Commonwealth Volunteers Protection Bill 2002Question agreed to.Bills9484Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Criminal Code Amendment (Offences Against Australians) Bill 2002Workplace Relations Amendment (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) Bill 2002Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2002Committees94859485948517:29:009485Gambaro, Teresa (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Gambaro)10000PON/A10—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Johnston has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund.Bills9485S3479485Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills9485R15679485Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.Bill returned from the Senate with a requested amendment.Ordered that the requested amendment be considered forthwith.Senate's requested amendment—(1) Schedule 2, item 2, page 36 (after line 24), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) A person is also a prescribed dental patient, in relation to a particular course of treatment, if: (a) before the person attained the age of 22 years, an approved medical practitioner or dental practitioner issued a certificate that states that the person is suffering from a cleft lip or a cleft palate condition; and (b) the person has attained the age of 28 years; and (c) before the person attained the age of 28 years, he or she received treatment for the condition; and (d) the Minister declares in writing that he or she is satisfied that: (i) because of exceptional circumstances, the person requires repair of previous reconstructive surgery in connection with the condition; and (ii) the person therefore needs to undergo that course of treatment.17:32:009485Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I move:That the requested amendment be made.I am pleased to note that the function of the Professional Services Review continues to attract strong bipartisan support and that the proposed amendments have the support of the opposition. This process of peer review is an important element in the overall administration of Medicare in ensuring the continuation of appropriate practice by medical practitioners. In respect of the Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Scheme, the government is pleased to accept the amendment as proposed by the Senate. The amendment adds to the government's initiative to lift the age limit from 21 to 28 to ensure a sufficient time period to accommodate the facial growth of all patients. The amendment recognises that, in some circumstances, it may be necessary to repair previous reconstructive surgery performed under the scheme in connection with the condition after the age of 28. Should this be required, this can now occur. I therefore commend the amendment and the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review and Other Matters) Bill 2002 to the House.Question agreed to.Bills9485R1550948517:33:009485Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)10000PON/A10—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has considered the bill for an act to amend the law relating to social security and for related purposes and has divided the bill into two bills: a bill for an act to amend the law relating to social security and for related purposes, the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002, consisting of clauses 1, 2 (as amended) and 3, schedules 1 (as amended), 4 (renumbered 2) and 5 (renumbered 3), the words of enactment and the title of the original bill; and a bill for an act to amend the law relating to social security and for related purposes, the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2002, consisting of schedules 2 (as amended), 3, 6 (as amended) and 7 of the original bill, renumbered 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, words of enactment and a title. The Senate returns the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2002 as divided and incorporating the Senate's amendments, and requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in the action taken by the Senate and in the amendments made by the Senate.The Senate also acquaints the House that further consideration of the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 has been made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.17:36:009486Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)10000PON/A10—Before the House proceeds with any action in relation to this message, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Senate has purported to divide the original bill into two bills and purported to make certain amendments. The Senate has transmitted one of the proposed bills to the House and has not completed its consideration of the second proposed bill. The Senate has requested the concurrence of the House in the action taken by the Senate and in amendments made by the Senate.The House will recall that, on 29 August this year, in relation to the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, the Speaker advised the House that there was no constraint upon the house in which a bill originated considering a proposal to divide a bill. The Speaker reminded the House that, on two occasions since 1995, the Senate had requested the House to consider a proposal to divide a House bill. The position of the House has been that the division of a bill in the house in which the bill did not originate was not desirable. Also, I understand that there may be grounds for the Senate action in purporting to divide a House bill being considered to provide the first stage of a failure to pass a bill for the purposes of section 57 of the Constitution. On the two previous occasions on which a Senate message purported to divide a bill originating in the House, the House did not consider the message seeking the concurrence of the House in the Senate action. It rests with the House as to whether it will consider the Senate message on this occasion.17:37:009486Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I move:That the House:(1) endorses the statement of the Deputy Speaker concerning the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 and Senate message No. 159;(2) declines to consider Senate message No. 159; and(3) requests the Senate to reconsider the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 as originally transmitted to the Senate by House of Representatives' message No. 77 of 30 May 2002.The government will not accept the splitting of the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 by the Senate. The bill as originally introduced is a spending bill and the government will not let the opposition parties cherry pick the measures in the bill that are most beneficial and leave out other parts of the package. All that has been achieved by the Senate in adopting this approach is to delay the start of these beneficial measures. This point was clearly made in the Senate by the Minister for Family and Community Services. The bill will be going back to the Senate unsplit and the Senate will have the opportunity to reconsider its position. The point has been made on various occasions that the measures contained in the bill are part of the overall welfare reform package that this government has been developing consistent with the McClure report. The bill represents one step on the path of the long-term whole of government approach to welfare reform. This is a bill in which the government wants to spend more money on welfare recipients, not by giving them more money but by investing in them and giving them greater opportunities. I urge the Senate to keep these facts in mind when it reconsiders the bill.The opposition have made a great deal about the need to make changes to the breaching process, and I would like to make a few comments about that. First of all, I stress that the government share concerns about the potential impact of breaching on vulnerable job seekers. That is why we have done a lot over the last year or so to ensure that the safeguards that are in the system are for those non-compliances beyond their control or are fully utilised. In particular, Centrelink has become a lot better at identifying vulnerable job seekers. This work was acknowledged by the Ombudsman in his recent report on the administration of breaching.Further, we have already significantly reduced penalties. In July this year, we introduced policy changes that have more than halved the penalties for many breaches. These changes provide a protection for the vulnerable job seekers but also maintain the deterrent for non-job seekers. It is premature to be talking about the need for changes to these recently introduced modified breaching processes. The government does not intend to make changes to Newstart and Youth Allowance breaching provisions until it has had the opportunity to make a full assessment of the impact of these changes. The government does not accept the Senate amendment to split the AWT bill and will be returning the bill to the Senate for further consideration.17:41:009487Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I rise to speak on the government's motion not to assent to the Senate's decision to split the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002. This is truly a historic moment in the life of this parliament. Here is a government that has vandalised its own bill. It is no wonder Senator Vanstone is now called `Senator Vandalstone', because the only positive measures left out of the tragedy of what was supposed to be a positive welfare reform process in this country over the last 3½ years have now been junked by this gutless minister.Those opposite come into this House and say that they will not pass some positive measures which the Senate has put into the bill, because it does not suit their political purposes. They want to use the unemployed of this country as hostages in that process. We in the opposition will not accept that; we will not accept that political blackmail. When this government talks the rhetoric of welfare reform, it should talk the rhetoric of rewarding work over welfare. Nothing goes to the heart of rewarding work over welfare more than the working credit. That is part of the very measures that were passed in total by the Senate and which the government is refusing to pass in this House today. They are measures that could go through immediately and be of immediate benefit to the unemployed people of this country.It just shows how far you will run from genuine welfare reform, how far you will run from rewarding work over welfare, and how far you will go to avoid a genuine debate in this community about making the penalty regime in the Social Security Act fairer for all Australians. When it comes down to it, what you believe in is providing incentives to those on very high incomes and punishment to those on low incomes. That is what it boils down to and that is why Senator Vanstone should hang her head in shame. That is why she is known as `Senator Vandalstone', and that is why, Minister, you are totally gutless. You will not stand up for the people who deserve the beneficial measures contained in the bill, which could be easily passed in this parliament today. The bill being considered, and which may be passed today and become law, would reintroduce the work credit, introduce a numeracy and literacy supplement and set up a legal framework for the Personal Support Program. That is all that remains of a positive program of welfare reform. That is all that remains from the McClure process. That is all that remains after 3½ years of rhetoric from this government. And it has now been proven to be empty rhetoric, because Senator Vanstone let the cat out of the bag in the Senate when she said, `The budget is going into deficit. We don't want to spend the money on the working credit any more.' It is $430 million over four years and you are walking away. Senator Vanstone had the hide, the obscenity, when she talked about that in the Senate, to get up say, `It is either the unemployed on the one hand or drought stricken farmers on the other.' That is what she said—she let the cat out of the bag. The highest taxing government in this country's history now has a budget problem, and those who are going to suffer are those who are out there working casually or part time; they are the ones who should receive the benefit of the working credit, which is worth $1,000. These are the same people who are continually abused in this House by the Minister for Employment Services, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. They have double standards all right—double standards all the way through. What we are witnessing here is nothing more than a squalid political tactic so that the government can renege on its commitment to the unemployed and junk the money for the working credit. That is exactly what this is all about.How extraordinary. I do not know how many times this could possibly have occurred in the last 100 years of political history: the government actually brings a bill back to the House of Representatives and junks its own positive measures. That is what it is doing. I tell you what: what you have done will not go unnoticed in the community. It is just extraordinary that the government can come in here and pretend that this is nothing other than some form of craven savings measure on their part—nothing more than that at all.The government's refusal points to the fact that it is not committed to genuine welfare reform. It is not committed to rewarding work over welfare. It is simply trying to find a way out of not spending this money. Splitting the bill is not cherry picking, as the minister attempted to say. Other elements of the initial bill, particularly participation requirements of parents and mature age, remain in the Senate, where a resolution of points of difference may continue. They have not been opposed outright, though key points of difference do need to be resolved. Labor is firmly of the view that the noncontentious elements that are with the House should be passed immediately because they are all beneficial. There is no disagreement, so why don't we get on with it? Why don't we get on with rewarding work over welfare? We will not get on with it because the government wants to make savings. There is simply no reason to delay these measures while discussions continue on the other elements of the bill.The work credit, in particular, requires substantial system changes by Centrelink, and I am sure that that agency would welcome the certainty that would come with the immediate passage of this legislation. Then there are changes to the personal support program, a program which was scheduled to commence on 1 July, nearly six months ago. Let us not forget: this is the second time that the government has frustrated the introduction of the working credit, not the first; it was delayed previously in a budget some time ago. Now we have this new phoney tactic of delaying working credits so that the government does not have to spend the money.These measures should be passed now, and the failure of the government to do so indicates just how barren it is and to what lengths it will go to deceive the Australian public and, particularly, to do the wrong thing by vulnerable Australians and the unemployed. There is simply no reason not to pass these measures now. The argument that somehow the House cannot deal with a split bill is a nonsense, and the minister opposite knows it. Indeed, the principle was adopted by the House just recently in relation to embryo research and cloning—and moved by none other than the Prime Minister. So we should be able to deal substantively with this bill today. A split bill is no different from a bill that returns from the Senate with amendments which omit certain parts—no different at all. So let us get rid of all of that nonsense that we had from the minister. However, in this instance, the other parts of the bill are not dead; they are still ready for discussion in the Senate as soon as the government is willing. Labor did not come to the decision to split the bill lightly. We gave the government ample opportunity to work through our points of disagreement on the other parts of the bill. But at the last minute the government refused to discuss any detailed changes. The government led us to believe that it was seriously considering amendments to the other parts of the bill. It encouraged us to talk to it and then at the last minute, around midnight the night before, it suddenly cancelled all discussions. Why did the government do that? Because it got the message from the Treasurer and from Senator Vanstone that it was out of money and the people who were going to pay would be the beneficiaries of the working credit. That is how it came about.We gave the government plenty of opportunity. Senator Vanstone has been saying in the Senate that somehow we were not talking. That is not so. We were talking, and the officials over there know we were talking. We were led to believe that there were going to be realistic discussions about the amendments. But then the political fix came in and the government decided it was going to go down the road that it has always gone down: when in doubt or in political trouble, go out and vilify the unemployed, imply that they are all work shy, do not worry about the role of incentives in the system, and save the money—that was the motivation: save the money. But Labor remains ready and willing to discuss the detailed amendments that are on the table.The changes proposed by Labor are moderate; they involve additional safeguards for the government's proposed changes regarding parents and mature age. These are fairly straightforward. Indeed, up until the government's decision not to play ball, we believed that it was viewing our amendments favourably. In addition, Labor are keen to engage the government in a debate to bring about changes to improve the breaching regime that job seekers and these new groups will be subject to—because we all know that Senator Vanstone has this shoot-first ask-questions-later fining policy—this shoot-first ask-questions-later penalty regime. We know it is like that. It is completely indiscriminate, which is why something like 40 per cent of these breaches are overturned on appeal. There is clearly a substantial need to put in some essential protections for people, and that is why the sector commissioned the Pearce review. We have put forward reasonable amendments based on the Pearce review to give people some reasonable protections in these circumstances. We remain keen to pursue that objective and will continue to do so. Labor will continue to engage the government in any debate to bring about changes to improve the penalty regime that job seekers and these new groups will be subject to—changes to improve fairness and compliance.I say in the strongest possible terms: these changes have absolutely nothing to do with going soft, as Minister Vanstone claims. They have absolutely nothing at all to do with that. Changes that have been canvassed in the amendment moved in the second reading debate in the Senate could very well lead to an increase in job seekers doing the right thing, improving their job prospects and, ultimately, gaining employment and moving off benefits. But, no, the government is not interested in genuine reform; it never has been. That is why there has been this whole process, starting with Senator Newman and all those proposals she had hidden in the bottom drawer. You might recall those proposals; they cut the benefit to disability support pensioners—a benefit which has turned up in another bill that has been named a reforming bill but which is nothing more than another crude cost-cutting measure. All those proposals are still there. And this government wonders why we remain suspicious of what it is really up to. The only one that is going soft in this business is the government. It is not interested in rewarding work over welfare; it is just interested now in not spending the money. That will bring to an end this whole false and phoney process it has had in place of pretending to reform the system. Really, it is not doing that at all. It is just leaving the welfare trap in place because it is not prepared to make the necessary investment in people. To sum up, this bill should pass the House today and become law. Labor urge the government to start talking about the detail of Labor's amendments and other parts of the bill. Labor have a detailed position on the table for the government to respond to. There is simply no place for this bloody-minded attitude from this government. Labor will oppose the motion and we shall reserve our right to split the bill in the Senate again.17:51:009490McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I rise today to speak on the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002. I support the shadow minister, the member for Lilley, in calling for the splitting of the bill. The bill has two significant aspects, a positive aspect and a negative aspect. The positive aspects in this bill deliver $900 million in assistance to Australian families and the long-term unemployed. The government is to be commended for these positive aspects. The negative aspects will give Australian families and the long-term unemployed a number of things to be apprehensive about. This bill is an assault on the principles on which the social security system is based and also on many of the values that underpin the Australian conception of a fair and just society. If the government is not prepared to take out the negative aspects, they should allow the bill to be split. In this way, the House can allow the positive aspects to go through speedily and then allow us to debate the negative aspects of the bill.Earlier this year, the Australians working together bill was referred to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee with terms of reference that allowed the committee to consider the findings of the Independent Review of Breaches and Penalties in the Social Security System. This is known as the Pearce report. The report recommends a series of legislative and administrative changes to the breaching provisions of the Social Security Act, which the Howard government now largely ignores.In particular, the report made a series of recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness and fairness of the social security system, with particular attention to the implementation of breaches. In my experience as a community worker and now as the federal member for Stirling, I have first-hand experience of the effects that rigid and harsh breaching penalties can have on the unemployed and their families. They often cause unnecessary and unjustifiable hardship, which only further impedes the unemployed in their search for employment. Breaching means loss of income to a person or family. This loss of income is a barrier to the person or family in their efforts to find a job. As we all know, job hunting is expensive; taking away income increases a person's prospects of remaining unemployed for a longer period or keeps them trapped in poverty for a longer period.Although this bill does contain a number of positive steps which will assist people back to paid employment, the AWT bill pays only lip-service to some of the deeper sources of injustice which are prevalent in our social security system. The Howard government's move to introduce the concept of mutual obligation does not recognise the personal pressures and differing circumstances of unemployed people in contemporary Australia. The Howard government fails to give equal concern to these members of the community and therefore fails to give them a fair go at attaining gainful employment. While the Howard government preaches the notion of obligation to Australians, it is itself neglecting to meet its obligations to certain unemployed citizens. This point was picked up by the Pearce report, which states that, although the system often functions in an appropriate manner, there are many occasions on which it can be `reasonably described as arbitrary, unfair or excessively harsh'. A central issue is whether parents who are receiving income support and whose youngest children are between 13 and 15 years of age should be obligated to undertake certain activities as a condition of payment. The Howard government fails to see the reality of raising a family in today's world. It is becoming increasingly harder to balance family responsibilities with the economic necessities of modern life. It was a Labor government in 1991 that established Jobs, Education and Training—the JET scheme—for people receiving parenting payments. Labor recognised the difficulties for single parents in balancing work and family responsibilities and the need to ensure that single parents without skills or work experience were not suddenly shunted onto an activity tested payment when their youngest child turned 16. However, the Howard government has reversed the focus of public policy, deciding that we should pander to corporate Australia rather than try to give ordinary Australians a fair go.There are a lot of urban myths out there in the Australian community about sole parents. In fact, there is a belief that sole parents are a drain on the taxpayer because they are receiving social security benefits. To deal with this urban myth and to ensure that the House understands the characteristics and life patterns of sole parents, I asked the Parliamentary Library to obtain some facts and figures for me to use in this debate. The Parliamentary Library was very helpful, and the information I would have mentioned if I had time comes from the government. In fact, it comes from a media release of the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Amanda Vanstone, called `Sole Parents deserve praise and support', dated 5 April 2002, as well as from the Department of Family and Community Services annual reports for 2000-01 and 2001-02. I fail to see the justice in forcing some of the most vulnerable sections of society to undertake certain activities—with the threat of losing their means of subsistence if they fail to comply—especially given the force of the reasons for noncompliance. The shadow minister has covered the issue very well, so we can move on and proceed to other equally pressing legislation.The Howard government needs to take a good, hard look at its values. The government seems more intent than ever before to pander to the top end of town and ensure that executive salaries continue to escalate while the people at the other end of the spectrum pay the price. The Howard government can start this process. Firstly, it can amend the AWT bill to ensure wider exemptions, improved safeguards and greater flexibility in the proposed participation arrangements for parents and mature age unemployed. Secondly, it can give effect to the majority of the legislative reforms proposed in the Pearce report. If it does not, I will have no choice but to ask the government to split the bill. I will support the $900 million of positive measures; I will oppose the negative measures. Thank you.17:58:009491Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I thank the previous speaker, the member for Stirling, and the member for Lilley for their contributions to the debate on the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002. However, a couple of points need to be raised. There is an indication here that the government is setting this up to fail. That is not the case at all. Indeed, Senator Vanstone acted in good faith in negotiating with the ALP.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Pass it.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—The ALP very conveniently want to split the bill, as they have tried to do with previous bills we have dealt with when there is a savings measure or other positive measure. It is absolute hypocrisy by the member for Lilley. His display in the House of Representatives this afternoon was perhaps a justification of the embarrassing situation when he refused to rule out his leadership credentials last week in the middle of this AWT debate. Even on AM and a number of other programs, he was hedging his bets: `Maybe we will; maybe we won't.' All we can hear now is: `Pass the bill.' That is exactly it. We do want to pass the whole bill. That is exactly right. But no, the Labor Party, just as they have done with the PBS and other measures, want to cherry pick. The fact is that it is this government which has actually embarked on welfare reform to ensure that people are given much better opportunities. It is interesting that the member for Lilley raised the issue of breaching. Under the Labor Party—particularly when he was last on this side of the House—if you had a breach it was `one strike and you're out'. That was the Labor Party's policy on breaching. How fair was that? Swan by name, goose by nature. Their breaching regime was one strike and you're out—you lost your total payment. That was the ALP's compassion when it came to welfare reform. When we introduced the breaching policy, guess who supported it? The Australian Labor Party. I remember the words of Senator Faulkner in the Senate. He said, `These are good measures.' They were even supported by ACOSS. But they do not quite like this, because they see that they can have a political advantage. Many of these changes that we made were made before the Pearce report, in recognition of those vulnerable job seekers. It is interesting to note the `facts' that the member for Lilley throws around, sprouting misinformation. He said that 43 per cent of breach decisions have been overturned on appeal. That is totally incorrect; it was 1.2 per cent in the last financial year. The fact is that the breaching rate has gone down by about 33 per cent since we introduced more compassionate measures—particularly for those who are vulnerable. By the same token, we have a firm policy of deterrence, which is absolutely necessary when it comes to ensuring that people fulfil their job seeking and mutual obligation requirements.It was also interesting when he talked about what we were allegedly trying to do with DSP. We actually adopted all the funding measures; and of course the more important measure of trying to focus people with disabilities back onto their abilities was rejected by the Australian Labor Party. They talk about vulnerable job seekers and those on the disability support pension, but in 1991 the Keating government made the decision to change the classification and park a huge number of Australians on DSP by artificially deflating unemployment figures. That is why today we have more than 650,000—and climbing—people on DSP. That is not fair, because the measure that we tried to put in place under the original DSP bill not only ensured extra funding for employment and disability services but also focused on people's abilities rather than letting them languish. That is politically convenient for the Labor Party when it comes to people who are vulnerable.In many ways, the AWT bill that we have tried to put up in its entirety reintroduces a more flexible and relevant working credit to overcome those lumps in payments for people who are going in and out of the work force or who are having difficulty in gaining employment. There is extra funding, particularly in literacy, numeracy and other programs. But the greatest crisis that we have now, particularly with a lot of lone parents, is that 850,000 children are growing up in jobless families. Fifty per cent of lone parents will remain on benefits five years after the youngest child has turned 16. Why shouldn't we encourage those parents to come back in to Centrelink—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPXJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—You never did it! Interestingly, under the Australian Labor Party there were one million people unemployed. That is your welfare policy: park more people on DSP and give fewer opportunities, particularly to sole parents and young families. What we are doing, quite deliberately, is trying prevention and intervention with sole parents when they call into Centrelink. When their child goes into primary school, we expect certain requirements to be met including at least six hours of some type of voluntary contribution as part of the mutual obligation. I think we have been extremely fair and quite transparent, from the McClure report through all the changes that we have been trying to make with welfare reform—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Name one!XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—I will name the one person who has been the champion opposer, and that is the member for Lilley. We know that the member for Lilley—he gets the big tick—is more interested in his future political ambitions here at the front desk. I am sure the member for Brand might be able to give him a few tips. During his diatribe he talked about the highest taxing government. As far as GDP is concerned, the highest taxing government was the Australian Labor Party when they were last in government. All these measures that we are planning with AWT are about improving the ultimate long-term financial viability and employment prospects, particularly for lone parents, and also ensuring that, for parents and mature-aged individuals receiving Newstart or other types of social security payments, there is some type of compliance but also some type of reward. This is political opportunism by the Labor Party. They were meant to be acting in good faith; of course, they are going to try to reject it now. This is just their typical fashion: they are trying to cherry pick legislation and play to their very limited constituency. This bill should be supported in its entirety. I hope that there might be a conversion on the road to Damascus rather than on the road to the leadership, which is clearly what the member for Lilley had in mind in dropping the ball, particularly when negotiations were taking place—I see that smirk of his now—a couple of weeks ago. We believe that it is important to have the whole bill passed and to ensure that all Australians, particularly parents and mature aged workers—with issues like working credit and all our other spending measures—get the best possible chance. This is all about this government providing more long-term welfare reform and ultimately seeing more people focused on their ability and getting gainful employment. I support the bill in its entirety.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am delighted we have extracted that confession—10000Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Order! The minister has closed the debate. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—What has he done?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Lilley will resume his seat. Question put:That the motion (Mr Anthony's) be agreed to.18:11:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. D.G.H. Adams) 80Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.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.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Windsor, A.H.C.Worth, P.M.60Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Organ, M.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.Wilkie, K.Question agreed to.Committees94949494949410000Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House with the following resolution agreed to by the Senate on 2 December 2002, relating to the proposed agreement between the government and the United States of America concerning US nationals, and referring the proposed agreement to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for inquiry and report: That the Senate:(a) notes, with concern, indications by the Government that it is considering entering into an agreement with the United States of America (US), pursuant to which Australia would agree not to surrender US nationals to the International Criminal Court without the consent of the US; and(b) refers the proposed agreement to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for inquiry and report, with particular reference to the following matters:(i) whether the proposed agreement would breach the terms of, or be otherwise inconsistent with the spirit of, the Rome Statute which Australia has ratified;(ii) the effect of the proposed agreement, either itself or in conjunction with similar agreements between the US and other states, on the ability of the International Criminal Court to effectively fulfil its intended function;(iii) the implications of any extradition provisions in the proposed agreement and whether the proposed agreement would require the re-negotiation of existing extradition agreements to which Australia is a party; and(iv) the implications of the proposed agreement with respect to Australia's national interest.Bills9494R1677BillsR1675BillsR1674BillsR1673BillsBills9494Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Andrews:That this bill be now read a second time.18:19:009494Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition supports this package of bills in respect of medical indemnity insurance, but in the course of my remarks I will move a second reading amendment drawing attention to the government's shortcomings and failings in this area.On 23 October this year, the government announced a package of measures to address rising medical indemnity insurance premiums and to ensure a viable and ongoing medical indemnity insurance market. In particular, the government announced an extension of the existing guarantee to United Medical Protection and Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd, UMP-AMIL, to 31 December 2003; partial subsidies for insurance premiums for obstetricians, neurosurgeons and GPs performing procedures; a scheme to meet 50 per cent of the cost of claim payments greater than $2 million, up to the insured amount, made by medical indemnity insurers; funding of the incurred but not reported—IBNR—liabilities for those medical defence organisations—MDOs—that have not set aside money to cover these liabilities; a levy to recoup the cost of the funding for IBNR liabilities for members of the relevant MDOs over an extended period; MDOs are to be brought into a new regulatory framework administered by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority; and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is to monitor medical indemnity insurance premiums to determine whether they are actuarially and commercially justified.The announcement of these measures followed the passage of the Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002. The purpose of that bill was to appropriate funds for payments in accordance with an indemnity agreement between the Commonwealth and UMP and its wholly owned subsidiary, AMIL, and to confirm the government's commitments relating to UMP-AMIL. As I have indicated, part of the government's announcement on 23 October was to extend that guarantee to 31 December 2003.The package of bills that the House is debating gives effect to those elements of the government's policy announced on 23 October. There are three main measures that the bills give effect to. The first measure is the IBNR scheme. The IBNR scheme assists those MDOs which had unfunded IBNRs as at 30 June 2002 to pay for those claims when they crystallise. In other words, the Commonwealth will help these MDOs to pay for claims which they have not adequately provisioned in the past. The IBNR scheme consists of two parts: firstly, the Commonwealth providing funding for medical defence organisations' IBNR liabilities that were unfunded as at 30 June 2002, with payouts beginning in early 2003; and, secondly, recouping the cost of funding those liabilities through a levy on members of the medical defence organisations with unfunded IBNRs. Members of those MDOs whose IBNRs were fully funded as at 30 June 2002 will not pay the levy. The package of bills provides for the Commonwealth making these payments and recouping the cost from doctors who are members of the affected medical defence organisations.The IBNR levy will be payable by any person who on 30 June 2000 was a member of an MDO that was assessed as having unfunded IBNR liabilities as at 30 June 2002. The levy will be tax deductible. Exemptions from the levy will apply to the estates of deceased members, members who have retired before 31 December 2001 and student members as at 30 June 2000. Medical practitioners who belong to an MDO that is fully provisioned for its IBNRs will not be subject to the levy. For those practitioners who are liable to pay the levy, it will be set as a proportion—a maximum of 50 per cent—of their medical indemnity premium paid for the 2000-01 financial year.The second key measure which the package of bills gives effect to is the high-cost claims scheme. The high-cost claims scheme addresses the issue of high cost claims and relates to medical incidents in this package of bills. It aims to lower premiums by reducing the potential cost of large claims to insurers. Under this scheme, the Commonwealth will meet 50 per cent of the cost of claim payments greater than $2 million up to the insured amount made by medical indemnity insurers. This scheme will apply to claims notified on or after 1 January 2003. It will not apply to claims relating to the provision of public hospital services.The third main measure which the package of bills gives effect to is subsidies. A subsidy will be provided to obstetricians, neurosurgeons and procedural GPs who undertake Medicare billable procedures. It will be the equivalent of 50 per cent of the difference between the cost of their premiums plus the IBNR levy, if applicable, and a corresponding cost for gynaecologists, general surgeons and nonprocedural GPs respectively in their relevant state or territory. In light of the particularly high premium costs faced by some neurosurgeons, combined with their relatively limited scope to derive income from private practice, the subsidy rate will increase to 80 per cent on the portion of their premium plus the levy, if applicable, that exceeds $50,000. Accessing the subsidy will be conditional on medical practitioners participating in quality and safety programs designed to protect patients and minimise the incidence of injuries. The subsidy will apply to the premium paid net of GST, as GST on the premium is eligible for an input tax credit, together with state and territory stamp duties. The package of bills provides for the implementation of those key measures in the following way: firstly, the Medical Indemnity Bill 2002 provides for determining which medical defence organisations, MDOs, have unfunded, incurred but not reported liabilities. The bill also provides for the Commonwealth making payments in relation to claims forming part of the unfunded IBNR liability of MDOs as at 30 June 2002 and in relation to high-cost claims and subsidies for certain medical practitioners; Commonwealth payments in relation to part of the cost of large claims against MDOs or medical indemnity insurers in relation to incidents notified after 1 January 2002; subsidies to assist medical practitioners in meeting the cost of indemnity coverage; and an administration mechanism to support levies on doctors to pay for the IBNR scheme and the enhanced UMP guarantee.The Medical Indemnity (IBNR Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002 imposes the levy for the IBNR scheme on doctors in those MDOs with unfunded liabilities. The Medical Indemnity (Enhanced UMP Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002 imposes a levy on UMP members to cover the cost of the Commonwealth of any part under the deed of indemnity, be it with the Commonwealth, UMP-AMIL and the provisional liquidator of UMP-AMIL.The Medical Indemnity (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 provides for amendments to the acts as a result of the medical indemnity bills. My understanding is that a number of medical defence organisations have been in discussion with the government in relation to some of the technical aspects of the bill. This may result in the need for technical amendment to the bill and, provided those technical amendments are consistent with the thrust of the bill, they will be supported by the opposition both here and in the other place. I note that the government has given notice of a number of technical amendments which have recently been circulated. I have not yet had the opportunity of considering those in detail but I may have that opportunity over the dinner break. In any event, they can be considered by the Senate.I also understand that consideration is being given by the Senate to referring these bills to the relevant Senate legislation committee for a short report. I would hope that any such referral by the Senate to a committee would not delay the passage of these pieces of legislation, package of measures, prior to the parliament getting up for the Christmas break. My understanding also is that to facilitate that it is the view of the opposition that the relevant cut-off exemption should be granted by the Senate for the consideration of these bills.So far as financial implications are concerned, the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook documents, MYEFO documents, provide for funding of $246.5 million over four years for the medical indemnity insurance assistance package in the following way: $54.4 million in 2002-03; $64.4 million in 2003-04; $63.7 million in 2004-05; and $63.5 million in 2005-06. The MYEFO documents do not disclose the amount budgeted for the UMP-AMIL guarantee or the expected amount to be raised from the IBNR levy to fund the guarantee.As I indicated at the outset of my remarks, the opposition supports these measures. That is not to say that the conduct of the government in this matter has been exemplary; on the contrary, it is subject to great criticism both in the medical profession and on our side. As a consequence, I foreshadow that, before the conclusion of my remarks, I will formally move the following amendment, which I am happy to have circulated: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“while supporting the passage of the Bills, the House:(1) condemns the Government for not adequately recognising the medical indemnity insurance problem and not acting quickly enough to address its adverse effects, including higher medical costs and reduced availability of services for Australians and their families; and(2) condemns the Government for failing to address the effects of higher medical indemnity insurance premiums on midwives, private hospitals, family planning clinics and aboriginal medical services; and(3) calls on the Government to:(a) assume a leadership role in the co-ordination of reforms necessary to State and Territory laws with the aim of uniformity in tort law reforms;(b) consider putting in place a national scheme to ensure the long term care and rehabilitation needs of catastrophically injured Australians;(c) ask the ACCC to ensure that whatever changes occur in medical indemnity insurance, no unfair or unreasonable oncosts flow to patients for the cost of their health care;(d) play a more active role in bringing together medical defence organisations and representing them in negotiations with reinsurers; and(e) support APRA with appropriate resources to fulfil its greater regulatory role in medical indemnity insurance”.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Before the break I flagged a second reading amendment to draw attention to the failure of the Howard government to properly address medical indemnity insurance problems. Whilst the crisis in medical indemnity insurance was publicly brought to a head by the financial difficulties experienced by UMP and by the appointment of a provisional liquidator, problems with medical indemnity insurance are not of recent origin. For example, in 1991 the previous Labor government established a review of professional indemnity arrangements for health care professionals. This review was chaired by Fiona Tito and it was responsible for examining the arrangements relating to professional indemnity and the experience with compensation for medical misadventure. Fiona Tito's report was completed at the end of 1995 and was released in January 1996. That report, amongst other things, recognised the importance of effective and ethical communication between health care professionals and patients; identified the need to develop evidence based medicine and define best practice, using tools such as clinical practice guidelines; called on health care institutions to develop a system for error identification and analysis to deal with errors in a positive manner; identified the tendency for doctors to practise medical defence medicine; discussed the need to ensure that people with severe disabilities obtained early access to rehabilitation services; recommended the wider use of structured settlements; recommended that medical defence organisations, using common accounting and reporting standards, ensure that members and policyholders be able to assess their relative financial strength; recommended that products be offered in a fair and accurate way; and recommended the establishment of an MDO fund to cover the costs of claims incurred but not reported, the famous IBNR, by a specified date. The Tito report, unfortunately, was largely ignored by the current government and its recommendations were not acted upon. In the run-up to the last federal election in November 2001, Labor recognised the need for action in the area of medical indemnity insurance and identified areas needing reform. Labor's medical indemnity reform package had been announced in July 2001 and it drew attention to the following requirements: the need to reduce the frequency of medical injuries by setting national benchmarks and guidelines and by promoting the use of information technologies to help doctors decide on the best treatment and avoid misdiagnosis or incorrect treatment; the need to promote structured settlements by changing the tax treatment of periodic payments to ensure injured patients have adequate regular payments to cover their health care costs for the rest of their lives; and the need to establish a national database on health care litigation to target the problem areas and to ensure that adequate support mechanisms are in place. The package sought: consistent state and territory reforms to legislation covering court procedures, the calculation of damages and the regulation of medical indemnity organisations; to tighten the prudential regulation of medical indemnity insurance to ensure that all funds operate soundly and have transparent accounts; to remove the open discretion held by some medical defence mutuals to decline coverage; to require all doctors to hold the appropriate insurance for the work they undertook; to reduce red tape by harmonising requirements from doctor registration; to improve risk management by medical indemnity funds, including working with the royal colleges to reduce the rate of medical injuries and to provide incentives for quality practice; and to refer the current problems with indemnity insurance for midwives to the then Senate inquiry into nursing to look at options to ensure that homebirths remained an option for expectant mothers. The Howard government regrettably was reluctant to play a role in addressing medical indemnity insurance and only took its preliminary steps following the last federal election. In December 2001, the Prime Minister belatedly announced a national medical indemnity insurance summit, which was ultimately convened on 23 April 2002. The summit's communique, which was issued following the summit on 23 April, frankly did no more than to announce that work would begin on a range of issues that had been identified as early as the Tito report and certainly as early as Labor's medical indemnity insurance package, which was released in July 2001. It is undeniably the case that the problems surrounding medical indemnity insurance are complex and there is no single solution. As a consequence, action is required by federal, state and territory governments and change is required of medical defence organisations, the medical profession and lawyers. Any comprehensive plan for solving the medical indemnity insurance problem must be coordinated at the Commonwealth level and it requires cooperation and agreement with each of the states and territories on necessary reforms in jurisdictions to complement such a national approach. Labor has repeatedly called on the Howard government to assume a leadership role in the coordination of reforms necessary to state and territory tort law and has highlighted the desirability of achieving uniformity in tort law reforms. Labor has also called on the Howard government to act in those areas for which it has responsibility, including dealing with issues of quality and safety of medical care, the establishment of a scheme for the care of catastrophically injured Australians, a heightened role for the ACCC to ensure that patients do not unreasonably bear the increased costs of medical indemnity insurance.The second reading amendment which I flagged draws attention to Labor's proposal for further Howard government action in this area. Firstly, there are areas that have been badly neglected, in my view, by focusing almost all of the efforts for reform on tort law and by not focusing more attention on the need to improve clinical outcomes and reduce clinical risk. Certainly it is the case that much of the debate about medical indemnity insurance has focused on the need for tort law reform. At the same time, regrettably, comparatively little attention has been given to reducing the number of adverse events through the encouragement of safer medical practice. Improvements in the quality and safety of medical care would lead to better health outcomes for patients and reduce the likelihood that doctors would be sued for inappropriate treatment. Whilst it is certainly the case that Australia performs well internationally, we can always do better. As a consequence, the Howard government should, in my view, make improving clinical outcomes and reducing clinical risk a much greater priority insofar as long-term improvement to this area is concerned.Secondly, more work needs to be done in considering whether a national scheme for the long-term care of the most catastrophically injured could be established. Labor has consistently advocated that a special national scheme is necessary to address high-cost cases in which catastrophic injury has resulted from medical procedures. It is clearly the case, both anecdotally and statistically, that the majority of these cases involve brain and spinal injuries and obstetrics. Complex cases involving catastrophically injured people take years to resolve through the courts and waste thousands, if not millions, of dollars in legal fees. These cases place a disproportionate burden on the cost of medical indemnity insurance. Putting in place a catastrophic injury scheme would be a significant contribution to stemming the exponential increase in premiums for the cost of medical indemnity insurance. The Commonwealth also has a significant role to play in assisting medical defence organisations to secure reasonably priced reinsurance. Australia has a multiplicity of generally state based organisations that provide medical indemnity insurance. With a more united front, Australian medical defence organisations would be much more likely to succeed in obtaining affordable reinsurance and helping to keep the cost of medical indemnity insurance from exponentially increasing. It is certainly the case these days that, to obtain medical indemnity reinsurance, one has to fly to London, Brussels or Geneva, and the Commonwealth playing a representative role in that capacity would certainly be of assistance to the various medical defence organisations.Changing the way in which medical indemnity insurance is regulated would also be a helpful advance. Medical indemnity insurance has historically been provided by a small number of state based medical defence organisations which have traditionally offered doctors membership rather than insurance. For this reason, regulation by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has, until recently, been poor. APRA recently moved to increase its regulation of the MDOs, including by requiring MDOs to cease discretionary cover and requiring insurance contracts, and obtaining undertakings from MDOs that have the effect of bringing them under direct APRA regulation. It is important that the Commonwealth ensure that APRA has the appropriate resources to fulfil this greater regulatory role.The Commonwealth should also ensure the prevention of price exploitation as a result of premium increases, and this envisages an increased role for the ACCC. It is now well known that very many patients are being asked to make large up-front payments by their specialists before surgical procedures are carried out, with the explicit justification that these up-front fees are necessary to defray the increased costs of medical indemnity insurance. We have also seen in more recent times indications from the Australian Private Hospitals Association that, in the course of next year, up-front fees in the order of $150 will be imposed to cover the difficulties that Australian private hospitals now find in gaining medical indemnity insurance.While it is expected that medical service providers will not be able to absorb the increased costs of medical indemnity insurance premiums and will, in many instances, seek to pass these costs on to patients, at a minimum, consumers should not be required to pay amounts which bear no relation to the increased premium costs. Whilst the ACCC only has jurisdiction with respect to medical services which are provided by incorporated bodies and not over doctors who practise as individuals or in partnerships, there is a definite role the ACCC can play in protecting consumers. Although the Howard government's decision envisages the ACCC playing a role so far as monitoring the increase in medical indemnity insurance premiums is concerned, there is also a role for the ACCC in ensuring that, whatever changes occur in medical indemnity insurance, no unfair or unreasonable costs flow on to patients for the cost of their individual health care.Those concerns are expressed in the second reading amendment which I detailed to the House prior to the break and has been circulated in my name. I also indicated that, in the course of the dinner break, I might have the opportunity of looking at the amendments which have been circulated by the government and going through the supplementary explanatory memorandum. Whilst, of course, over that short period of time I would not regard this as a definitive analysis, there appears to be nothing in the proposed amendments by the government, as reflected by the explanatory memorandum and the amendments as circulated, which does anything other than pursue the substantive objectives of the bill and make technical amendments to facilitate that effect. So we support the passage of the legislation and indicate preliminary support for the technical amendments as circulated by the government. My amendment draws attention to the government's failure to anticipate the problems which would arise in medical indemnity insurance. I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“while supporting the passage of the Bills, the House:(1) condemns the Government for not adequately recognising the medical indemnity insurance problem and not acting quickly enough to address its adverse effects, including higher medical costs and reduced availability of services for Australians and their families; and(2) condemns the Government for failing to address the effects of higher medical indemnity insurance premiums on midwives, private hospitals, family planning clinics and aboriginal medical services; and(3) calls on the Government to:(a) assume a leadership role in the co-ordination of reforms necessary to State and Territory laws with the aim of uniformity in tort law reforms;(b) consider putting in place a national scheme to ensure the long term care and rehabilitation needs of catastrophically injured Australians;(c) ask the ACCC to ensure that whatever changes occur in medical indemnity insurance, no unfair or unreasonable oncosts flow to patients for the cost of their health care;(d) play a more active role in bringing together medical defence organisations and representing them in negotiations with reinsurers; and(e) support APRA with appropriate resources to fulfil its greater regulatory role in medical indemnity insurance”.10000Price, Roger (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. L.R.S. Price)—Is the amendment seconded?83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs Livermore—I second the amendment.20:13:009500Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Even prior to the collapse of HIH and the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre, it was evident that there were problems in the field of general insurance. Within Australia, FAI and HIH had priced their premiums unrealistically without regard to risk and, in addition, there had been a worldwide problem in reinsurance. All of these factors contributed in some way to the problems in medical indemnity insurance, which was demonstrated dramatically this year by the collapse of UMP. Medical indemnity is provided by the medical defence organisations. In Australia these include UMP, the Medical Defence Association of Australia, Medical Indemnity Protection Society, MDASA, MDAWA, the Medical Protection Society of Tasmania and the Queensland Doctors Mutual Ltd. It is important to understand that they are not insurers; they are not-for-profit mutuals. They do not issue insurance contracts; they protect their members in return for subscription income, and they rely on reinsurance to do this. Since 1999, four of the main MDOs have had to make a call on their members for additional funds.I will outline some of the recent events that have occurred this year. On 3 May 2002 a provisional liquidator was appointed to UMP and its subsidiary. UMP covers 60 per cent of doctors in Australia for professional indemnity cover. We have seen subscriptions to MDOs increase dramatically. We have also seen that the MDOs have not provided for their incurred but not reported claims. In response to the collapse of UMP, on 31 May the government announced that it would assist UMP to cover payment for claims finalised and incidents between 29 April and 30 June. This was then extended to 31 December 2002.On 23 October 2002 there was a joint announcement by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and Ageing and also the Assistant Treasurer that: firstly, the guarantee would be extended to 31 December 2003; secondly, there would be government funding for the incurred but not reported liability at 30 June 2002 where the IBNRs are unfunded; thirdly, there would be government reimbursement for medical indemnity providers, either MDOs or medical indemnity insurers, on a per claim basis for 50 per cent of the insurance payouts over $2 million for incidents notified on or after 1 January 2003—this is the high-cost claim section; fourthly, there would be provision of premium subsidies for obstetricians, neurosurgeons and procedural GPs—this measure is conditional on these practitioners attending incident management and quality assurance programs; fifthly, there would be a cost recovery which would consist of a levy on members for the unfunded incurred but not reported liabilities and payments would be made by members of the MDOs to the Commonwealth to cover the cost to the Commonwealth of payments in relation to those unfunded IBNR liabilities; and lastly, medical indemnity insurance providers would have prudential supervision from APRA and would act more commercially in future. Changes in accounting standards will require the MDOs to include IBNRs on their balance sheets and provision for them. This legislation comprises four bills which implement the measures which were announced on 23 October 2002, except for the prudential supervision by APRA. I welcome the announcement of 23 October as a good, commonsense outcome and a good approach to the vexed question of professional indemnity insurance and medical indemnity insurance in this case.The Medical Indemnity (IBNR Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002 and the Medical Indemnity (Enhanced UMP Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002 are both taxation bills. To satisfy section 55 of the Constitution, which states that laws imposing taxation shall only deal with the imposition of taxation and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect, they are separate bills. But the main bill is the Medical Indemnity Bill 2002, which is under debate at the moment along with the other ones.I will now refer to the IBNR indemnity scheme. Where MDOs have not provided for the incurred but not reported liabilities, the Commonwealth will meet the liabilities as they fall due but they will also levy doctors to cover the cost. This will allow the MDOs to continue without being burdened by past IBNRs. It allows in essence a fresh start. Division 1 of part 2 of this bill provides that, if MDOs do not have enough money to fund their IBNRs, the Commonwealth will pay money to the MDOs providing that the MDOs are participating MDOs. Whether they are participating MDOs is subject to ministerial discretion. If, for example, an MDO does have sufficient funds to pay their IBNR then the minister can determine that the fund is non-participating. This covers incidents occurring before 30 June 2002 but notified after 30 June 2002. The MDO will make the payment and will then be reimbursed by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth may pay all or a percentage of the claim. This is covered in clauses 21 to 23 of this bill. The proportion of the payment will be assessed by the Australian Government Actuary to reflect the proportion of the participating MDO's IBNR liabilities which are unfunded. There is an important exception to this: IBNR payments will not be made for an incident relating to a public patient in a public hospital. I presume that is because the coverage is provided by the state governments in that case.I turn to the part of the bill which relates to high-cost claims. The Commonwealth's partial coverage of high-cost claims will improve the affordability of premiums, it will improve the bottom line of the medical defence organisations, and it may even encourage new entrants to come into the market—which at the moment, without these changes, is not an attractive market to be in.Clauses 29 and 30 in division 2 of the bill provide that the Commonwealth will pay 50 per cent of insurance payments over $2 million. The 50 per cent figure can be changed by regulation. This will apply to a claim in Australia which is notified after 1 January 2003 and is greater than $2 million or an amount which can be changed by regulation and where the medical defence organisation has paid the amount or is liable to pay. Once again, there is an exception for incidents involving public patients in public hospitals and I assume that is for the reason that their liability is covered by the state governments. Clause 43 of the bill, dealing with the medical indemnity subsidy scheme, states that the minister can determine medical practitioners who will receive a subsidy for the medical indemnity premiums. On 23 October, the Prime Minister stated that this would apply to obstetricians, neurosurgeons and GP proceduralists, and there are good reasons why those professional groups are included. This measure will help to make premiums more affordable for these groups. These groups have major affordability issues relative to their incomes and relative to their professional peers in the specialties for obstetricians and neurosurgeons, but also for GP proceduralists.The subsidy will be 50 per cent of the difference between the premium and the incurred but not reported levy for the obstetricians, neurosurgeons and procedural GPs, relative to those of gynaecologists, general surgeons and non-procedural GPs. So we will be looking at the difference between the risk premiums of an obstetrician and a gynaecologist, a neurosurgeon and a general surgeon, and a procedural GP and a non-procedural GP. Obstetricians and neurosurgeons are high-risk subspecialties and are associated with high premiums. They are not high income for a specialist group, and they spend up to one-third of their Medicare income on premiums. Neurosurgeons pay high premiums and have limited capacity to earn income from private practice, and so another section of the Medical Indemnity Bill 2002 provides that the subsidy will be 80 per cent for the premium plus the levy where it is over $50,000. Obstetricians, neurosurgeons and orthopaedic surgeons are often included in the three specialties that pay the highest premiums, but orthopaedic surgeons are not included here. An examination of their premiums showed that around the states their premiums are much lower than those of obstetricians and neurosurgeons: approximately $25,000 in 2001-02.I move to procedural GPs. In general, this group most commonly practises in rural and remote areas and has a low volume of procedural services, so it is difficult to recoup the cost of the medical indemnity for services such as obstetrics. But they provide a very important service, and without having this sort of cover we would lose the procedures these general practitioners are able to perform in rural and remote areas.Part 3 of the bill deals with financing the schemes. Division 1 sets out that all members of a participating MDO as at 30 June 2000 are required to make a contribution unless they have died, retired before 31 December 2000, were a student at 30 June 2000 or have alternative insurance. The rate is based on the indemnity premium or subscription paid by the members. This will only apply to doctors who belong to an MDO with an unfunded incurred but not reported liability as at 30 June 2002. Doctors who are members of an MDO that has funded its IBNR liabilities will not need to pay a levy. Paying the levy is a more affordable option for the medical profession than the past method, which was the MDO making a call on its members or introducing higher premiums. We saw that several times with UMP. The levy can be paid in a lump sum or by instalments, or it can be deferred for a year—for example, if the members take time out of the work force or go overseas. The levy is expected to run for five years to make it affordable. The annual amount will be limited to 50 per cent of a doctor's 2000-01 premium, and the levy is also tax-deductible.Division 2 of part 3 of the bill sets out that members of the UMP as at 1 July 2002 must pay a contribution to cover the cost of the Commonwealth guarantee to the provisional liquidator of UMP, AMIL, covering 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2003. With regard to the UMP indemnity contributions, UMP members are required to pay the levy if UMP goes into liquidation, under the deed of indemnity between the Commonwealth, UMP and the provisional liquidators. I turn to the financial impact of the bill. It is estimated that the annual cost of high-cost claims is $19 million to $35 million, although this depends on the progress and nature of state tort law reform. The other impacts have already been included in the 2001-02 budget impact.The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has proposed a single medical defence organisation. There is nothing to stop any of the seven existing MDOs merging with another; that is really a matter for them. It is of course also subject to the Trade Practices Act and the ACCC. However, size is not everything; UMP shows us that. They had a 60 per cent market share but still were not able to price their premiums properly. This bill provides an important response to the collapse of UMP and also to the difficulties medical defence organisations have. There are also some long-term measures, which the opposition spokesman on health spoke about and which are being addressed by the government. First of all, tort law reform is the subject of negotiations with the states. We are already starting to see some cases in the state court systems overturning previous cases in terms of medical negligence and the definitions thereof. Also, long-term care costs will be helped by the high-cost claims scheme. That scheme covers high-cost claims greater than $2 million. It is important to make the point that the number of catastrophically injured as a result of medical negligence is very small compared with the whole population. Motor vehicle accidents, for example, are much more common. This is an area of direct responsibility for the states. They have the infrastructure in place to assist people with catastrophic injuries. So it is up to the states to explore the feasibility of allowing a victim of medical negligence access to the services provided under these schemes. We want to see access to services rather than a new bureaucracy. While I sympathise with those who have family or friends who have been catastrophically injured, there is, as I said, existing infrastructure in the states.I turn to the issue of clinical risk management. Any doctor receiving a subsidy—and that includes that group of obstetricians, neurosurgeons and GP proceduralists—must do quality and service safety activities as a result of the Commonwealth assistance. There are other initiatives of the government which are operating on a much wider systemic scale—for example, the Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care, chaired by Bruce Barraclough, which is promoting improvement in safety issues. They divide it into priority areas: one, supporting those who work in the health system; two, improving data and information for safer health care; three, involving consumers in improving health care safety; four, redesigning systems to facilitate a culture of safety; and, five, building awareness and understanding of health care safety. Some of the practical things the council are focusing on are, firstly, reducing patient harm associated with medication use; secondly, reducing patient harm resulting from health care associated infections; thirdly, coordinating national action to learn from serious events; and, lastly, developing national standards to support more open disclosure to patients and their carers.Last of all, the high-cost claims scheme will help to reduce reinsurance costs. This could encourage new entrants. By improving the market conditions, our medical defence organisations would be in a good position to negotiate their reinsurance contracts because of the high-cost claims scheme. We think it is more important for us to make this a more attractive market than to negotiate on behalf of the MDOs. Our expertise is not in insurance. We are not in the insurance business. This legislation has been introduced in response to a crisis in medical indemnity, but we believe it is more important to improve market conditions than to represent the MDOs in the reinsurance treaties. We are not in the insurance business.20:31:009503Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Whilst the opposition is not opposing the Medical Indemnity Bill 2002 and related bills, I would like to place on the record my absolute disgust at the government's handling of this matter. Its handling of the medical indemnity insurance crisis has left a lot to be desired. In doing so, I would like to support the amendments moved by the member for Perth. I have to condemn the government for the way it has vacillated, procrastinated and delayed bringing in this legislation. In doing that, I would like to put on record that it is not only members of the opposition and the constituents we speak to on a day-to-day basis but also the doctors who have been relying on the government to resolve this matter and to resolve it a lot quicker than it has done. Doctors have been very concerned about the delay in coming up with any viable, long-term solution to this problem. The government's action in this area has really left a lot to be desired. As well as creating uncertainty for the medical profession, it has created uncertainty for mums, dads and their children in my electorate and electorates throughout Australia. When the crisis first eventuated, various doctors closed their doors because they were so uncertain as to the future, and it left a great void. Here we are six months later and we finally have legislation. It is not the full answer to the problem, but we are a little bit further down the track than we were before the government announced these measures. They are a starting point. The states and territories moved a lot quicker than the federal government did. In New South Wales, the health minister announced that all doctors working in the public system would be covered, and there have been moves to change the tort laws in the states. Unfortunately, I must compare this to the response of the federal government, which vacillated and delayed making a decision. That is something we have come to expect from this government, unless it is about introducing legislation that is going to benefit its friends.Finally, after much delay, the government did come up with the legislation we are debating today. As I have mentioned, this delay jeopardised patient care and the delivery of health services and created this uncertainty and other things I will mention as I continue. This has been symbolic of the government's performance in the area of health. On 23 October, the government announced a package of measures to address the rising medical indemnity insurance premiums and to ensure viable, ongoing medical indemnity coverage. In particular, the government announced an extension of the existing guarantee to United Medical Protection and Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd—that is, to extend their cover to 31 December next year. I hope that, on 3 December next year, I am not standing in this House debating legislation to extend it for another 12 months. It was only on 17 October that we debated legislation to extend the cover to the end of this year. To my way of thinking, that is not the way to handle an issue as important as this one. People need certainty. Doctors need certainty and their patients need certainty. I have to be very critical, because I do not think this delivers that long-term certainty.There are partial subsidies for insurance premiums for obstetricians, neurosurgeons and GPs performing surgery. That is a most welcome measure. In the area that I represent that has been quite a problem and there has been a great reduction in the number of obstetricians and neurosurgeons. As I highlighted in the speech I made in October, there are only three obstetricians, to the best of my knowledge, working privately in the Newcastle area. This situation has been allowed to develop by a government that is a champion of the private sector. It has encouraged Australian families to take out private health insurance and it has put a lot of money in insurance as opposed to the actual health system. It has failed to provide enough certainty and coverage for obstetricians, and a similar situation exists for neurosurgeons. The number of neurosurgeons in both the Hunter and the Central Coast has declined significantly. Traditionally, the brightest medical students went into specialties like neurosurgery and obstetrics, and now they are steering away from those because of concerns about medical indemnity insurance and cases that could come up in the future.The government announced a scheme to meet 50 per cent of the cost of claim payments greater than $2 million up to the insured amount made by medical indemnity insurers. There is also a levy to recoup the cost of funding the incurred but not reported, IBNR, liabilities of medical defence organisations that have not set aside money to cover these liabilities. Also, these organisations are to be brought into a new regulatory framework administered by APRA. The ACCC will monitor medical indemnity premiums to determine whether they are actuarial or commercially justifiable. This is good, but it is too little too late. While these announcements and this legislation are welcome, unfortunately I do not see that it will solve the problem in the long term. They are short-term measures that seek to stabilise the situation—stabilise the increasing costs of premiums—rather than providing a long-term solution to the problem. These measures are not proactive; they are reactive. They are reacting to a situation that exists now and are not offering a long-term solution. One thing that really concerns me is the failure of this package to address the professional indemnity needs of health care professionals such as midwives. In the Hunter there is only one midwife practising privately. She is about to leave the area and will not be replaced. She is moving to northern New South Wales, and it is my understanding that she will not be practising as a midwife because she feels she cannot continue in the current environment. This is a result of the government's failure to address this problem. It has taken away an option for those midwives who are practising privately, particularly in the area of homebirth. I would not like to mislead the parliament: once this midwife leaves there will be no midwives practising or prepared to work in the area of homebirth in the area I represent. The bill also fails to mention issues relating to allied health professionals.This legislation is a short-term fix, not a long-term solution. I compare the government's handling of this issue to its handling of the bulk-billing issue—it is very similar. In the Shortland electorate in 1999-2000, 78.6 per cent of all medical services were bulk-billed. The latest figures I have show that that has declined to 57 per cent. That is a mammoth decline. Back in 2000, the government commissioned the relative value study of the work performed by GPs. That relative value study showed that the GPs should receive in excess of $40 per consultation. The government failed to act on that, and the AMA and the government were not talking and the issue was not being addressed. That led to a greater decline in bulk-billing services. Who does it hurt? It hurts the families, the pensioners and the veterans that each of us represent in this place. I think the saddest thing of all is that very few GPs are bulk-billing pensioners. All members of this House would know that acceptance of the gold card by GPs is in jeopardy as well.In my area the decline in bulk-billing has been made worse. That is because one of the first acts of this government was to close a Medicare office that was at least in the vicinity, making it easier for people living in the area to collect their money. They now have to travel a lot further and, particularly where you have an elderly population, that can be a problem because many people have restricted driving licences. I spoke on the telephone with one lady today. She said that her mother, who has been going to a doctor for many years, attended his surgery the other day and was advised that he no longer bulk-billed. Her mother did not know what to do. She had never been to a Medicare office and, because the local Medicare office had been closed, she had to travel some distance. Being 88 years old, the mother had to be driven by the daughter, and the daughter also had to fill out the forms. This caused great anxiety for the mother.My issue here and how it relates to what we are debating tonight is that, if you allow things to slide, if you do not consult and talk to the people who are involved, the situation will deteriorate. It is very similar to the fact that we have a doctor shortage on the Central Coast in the area that I represent. The desired ratio is one GP per 1,000 people; on the northern part of the Central Coast, there is one GP to every 2,500 people. Certain communities are not only without a doctor who bulk-bills; they are without a doctor—and it is my understanding that the situation is deteriorating. The government promised the allocation of 150 doctors to outlying areas of the six major capital cities; we have seen none being allocated to the area I represent. The government's latest idea of sending failed specialists to work as GPs is not only unacceptable to general practitioners but unacceptable to the people that I and most of us represent in this House. The government refused to act and it refused to negotiate with the GPs—and here we have a crisis relating to bulk-billing. That crisis will continue under this government; it is only the opposition, which is listening to the people, that is prepared to act.Another thing that I have done is to send a survey out to the people in my electorate of Shortland. To date, I have had 2,500-plus responses to that survey. Overwhelmingly, the most important health issue for my constituents is having a doctor who bulk-bills. Once again, the government has not acted, letting down the people whom I represent in this place. Certain things need to be done to resolve the medical indemnity insurance problem. One is that the government needs to show a little more leadership and coordinate national reforms, a national approach. Unfortunately, it has failed to do this. We need uniformity in tort law, and to date this government has not been able to deliver there. It is unable to show leadership. It specialises in creating division and sitting on its hands. We need mandatory reporting of negligence claims and a national data collection of health care negligence cases to help assess where the major problems lie and what the issues are. Until we have that, the problem within the medical system will continue. We really need a government that is prepared to consult, to talk to people.In Oregon, Oregon Health Services undertook a study—and I mentioned this in a speech I made in the House on 17 October. The spokesman for that project was Larry Baker. In Oregon they found that they were able to dramatically—and I mean really dramatically—reduce the costs of medical negligence claims simply by communicating and talking with people. If the health service there makes a mistake and there is a problem—if a person has a complaint, a relative has been lost or somebody is unsatisfied with the medical treatment they have received—they admit it. Rather than going to ground and refusing to accept responsibility, they admit that they have made a mistake. They talk about it and they resolve the problem. Further to what I have mentioned so far, consideration needs to be given to putting in place a national scheme to ensure long-term care and rehabilitation. A much more active role must be played in keeping reinsurance costs down, working and negotiating with medical defence organisations and improving clinical outcomes.This legislation should not be considered as a solution to the problem of medical indemnity insurance. Rather, it is a start, and much more is needed. It is a disgrace that here we are, six months down the track, debating this legislation today. It is a disgrace that three months ago we debated legislation that covered us until the end of this year. I certainly hope that this time next year we are not back here debating similar legislation. (Time expired)20:51:009506Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I welcome the introduction of the Medical Indemnity Bill 2002 and associated bills and I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate on medical indemnity insurance. The aim of the government's legislation is to provide for the long-term sustainability and affordability of medical indemnity insurance for Australian doctors. Following the placing into liquidation of United Medical Protection and Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd, the government put in place temporary arrangements to ensure that medical services would continue without disruption. The financial situation being experienced by the medical indemnity organisations and the increasing costs of indemnity insurance were cause for strong and decisive action by the government. The deterioration in the financial health of the funds is to be lamented. Many questions have been asked, and will continue to be asked, about how they came to find themselves in such a parlous state. Nevertheless, without the government implementing the new measures, the ability of our medical practitioners to continue to provide the vital services they do provide to the Australian people would have suffered greatly. The government has provided a guarantee to cover claims within a specified period, allowing doctors to continue to practise in the knowledge that claims will be met. At the same time, the Prime Minister announced the government's proposals for dealing with the unfunded incurred but not reported liabilities—known as IBNRs—of the funds. The Medical Indemnity Bill 2002 has been introduced to deal specifically with this issue. Through this measure, the government will establish which funds have IBNRs and have failed to set aside money to cover their liabilities. The government will then fund these liabilities but will recoup this cost through a levy on the fund's members which will be payable over an extended period. This levy will apply only to those funds which have not funded their IBNRs. Doctors who are members of a medical indemnity organisation that has funded its IBNRs will not be subject to the levy. This is the only fair and equitable way of resolving this issue. It would not be right for the Australian taxpayer to carry the entire burden; at the same time, without this funding doctors would have faced much higher premiums which they would have been forced to pay over a short period. By this measure, the government has made the cost of funding these liabilities more affordable. Doctors who have to pay the levy because their medical indemnity organisation has not funded its IBNRs will have several options. They can pay the levy in a lump sum and enjoy a discount, they can pay by instalments or they can defer payment for a year. The levy, which is tax deductible, will probably run over five years; the annual amount which a doctor pays will be limited to 50 per cent of their 2000-01 premium.To properly safeguard doctors in the future, the medical indemnity organisations will now be subjected to a range of prudential safeguards to reduce the risk of their insolvency. A new regulatory framework will be established by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. From now on, medical indemnity organisations must report their IBNRs on their balance sheets and make provision for them.Let us be quite clear on this. In the past some organisations had not provided adequately for their incurred but not reported liabilities. Some have seen the error of this and in recent years have changed their financial practices to ensure that all of their liabilities are fully funded. As a result of the government's strong actions, all medical indemnity organisations will now have to not only show the level of all of their liabilities but also make adequate provision for them. It is important for the sake of the medical profession to maintain choice in the provision of medical indemnity insurance. The competitive marketplace usually provides the most affordable and best quality service available, with an appropriate regulatory framework.In order to safeguard the public by ensuring that doctors can continue to practise with adequate medical indemnity insurance cover, the government has strengthened the regulatory requirements. At the same time it has provided the means by which the mistakes of the past can be paid for fairly and affordably. The government has also been mindful of the problem of increasing costs of medical indemnity insurance premiums. This legislation will ease the pressure on doctors, through the high-cost claims scheme, under which the government will provide assistance for the cost of large claims. Medical indemnity organisations will pay out less on big claims, leading to a reduction in the amount of reinsurance they have to purchase, and this should have a positive effect on premiums.The bill also provides for premium subsidies for specific groups of doctors who undertake high-risk specialties but whose expertise and service to their patients are vital. These doctors have suffered from particularly large increases in their premiums during recent times, and the government will provide subsidies to help them afford the cost of their premiums while the broader reform package takes full effect. This will serve to address a key concern of many medical practitioners.Ultimately the sustainability of the medical indemnity insurance industry depends on improving patient safety. I understand that, after consultation with medical professionals and their industry representatives, the minister has been encouraged by their desire and willingness to improve clinical risk management and reduce the incidence of patient injury.At the local level, I have seen the willingness of health professionals to improve the care and safety of their patients through the introduction of prescribing safeguards in an aged care facility in my electorate. A joint project between the University of South Australia, Helping Hand Aged Care and the Adelaide North East Division of General Practice will provide doctors caring for patients with the Helping Hand Aged Care facilities with access to the same prescribing information that is available in their surgeries. The benefit to residents will come from the improved levels of safety and quality in the prescribing of their medicines. Medication errors, and their often adverse effects, are a problem which occurs not only in Australia but throughout the world. It is particularly pleasing to see that one solution to this problem is being implemented here in South Australia. Dr Chris Bollen of the Adelaide North East Division of General Practice has advised me that the idea for this project came about as a result of his reading the recommendations of the Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care, a federal government initiative. It is always pleasing to see that the valuable expert advice and information generated by such bodies is utilised effectively within our community. I wish to personally congratulate Dr Bollen and Professor Jim Warren of the University of South Australia. Thanks must also go to the dedicated management, Dr Milton Hart and staff, whose hard work and enthusiasm for this project have seen it become a reality. For residents of Helping Hand Aged Care, it must be a comfort to know that their interests are being well served by so many talented people.Finally, in dealing with claims made by patients against their doctors, we must recognise that such matters need to be kept in a proper perspective. As with other areas of tort law, we must not go down the American path of excessively high levels of litigation. We are, unfortunately, becoming a more litigious society and doctors are just as human as the rest of us: mistakes will be made no matter how careful and cautious we are. Moves to allow medical professionals to offer an apology to patients or the patient's family without condemning himself or herself to a financial malpractice suit are steps in the right direction. It may be an often used phrase, but a little bit of basic commonsense is what may be lacking in some instances, along with a little humanity and understanding. These bills address some of the underlying structural problems of the medical indemnity insurance industry and will reduce the pressure on premiums that doctors have to pay. Ultimately it will be for the state and territory jurisdictions to tackle the problems of tort law reform which are at the heart of this issue. As the chair of the health and aged care committee, I commend the bills to the House.21:01:009508O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Medical Indemnity Bill 2002 and associated bills which we are debating in the House tonight give effect to significant elements of the government's policy on medical indemnity insurance which were announced on 23 October 2002. These bills are a response to a crisis situation in the medical profession that should have been reasonably anticipated by the government. Once again, the incompetence of this government has been seriously exposed by the public record of events in relation to this complex area of medical indemnity insurance. These bills contain three important measures to assist the medical profession in addressing the issue of steeply rising medical insurance premiums and they introduce a measure of certainty and stability to the medical insurance market. In typical fashion, the debacle in the medical insurance area mirrors what has happened in many policy areas where this government and its ministers, in their incompetence, have failed to act decisively to head off crises and collapses in the corporate area. At the end of the day, that incompetence has cost industry dearly and a huge burden has been placed on ordinary Australians. In the collapse of HIH, the Treasurer and his prudential regulator failed in their administrative duty. The pieces of the Treasurer's incompetence are still being picked up by football clubs, pony clubs, local governments, tourism businesses and doctors. In the Ansett and OneTel collapses, the government ministers were asleep at the wheel, and there were horrendous impacts on the lives of employees and, in Ansett's case, on regional businesses which were particularly reliant on the continued operation of that airline. There is one disturbing characteristic of these collapses and crises: the sheer incompetence of government ministers in failing to act decisively in emergency crises. Now we can add another crisis to the list: the crisis in medical indemnity insurance. In announcing a package to meet the ongoing crisis, the government outlined a number of measures to address the problems that have emerged in the medical indemnity insurance field. They are an extension of the existing guarantee to United Medical Protection and Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd to 31 December 2003; partial subsidies for insurance premiums for obstetricians, neurosurgeons and GPs performing procedures; a scheme to meet 50 per cent of the cost of claim payments greater than $2 million, up to the insured amount, made by medical indemnity insurers; funding of the incurred but not reported liabilities for those medical defence organisations that have not set aside money to cover these liabilities; a levy to recoup the cost of funding for IBNR liabilities for members of the relevant medical defence organisations over an extended period; medical defence organisations to be brought into a new regulatory framework administered by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority; and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to monitor medical indemnity insurance premiums to determine whether they are actuarially and commercially justified.This package of bills gives effect to basically three elements of the October announcements. Firstly, it provides a scheme to assist those medical defence organisations which have unfunded incurred but not reported liabilities as at 30 June 2002 to meet those claims when they come onstream. Secondly, it provides a high-cost claims scheme aimed at lowering premiums by reducing the high cost of claims related to medical incidents. Thirdly, it provides a subsidy to obstetricians, neurosurgeons and GPs who undertake Medicare billable procedures. I do not propose to canvass the complexity of these bills. Suffice it to say that, had the government acted earlier to address this crisis, the Australian taxpayer might have been spared the $246.5 million outlay over four years that is now required to address the very serious problems that emerged in the medical insurance indemnity market. The opposition will support the bill, but we have moved a second reading amendment that offers some scope for debate and discussion on matters affecting the provision and cost of medical indemnity insurance to GPs and other medical specialists, and other associated matters. As members appreciate, the services provided by doctors are not always provided in hospitals or surgeries. Doctors are called on at the scene of emergencies, in the home when a person is taken seriously ill or is convalescing, and in places such as nursing homes and hostels where care to the aged is delivered. In the case of the latter, the ongoing quality of care and the physical safety of the aged are important elements of the total package of care provided by doctors, health care professionals and aged care providers within the ambit of their establishments. Regrettably, in recent years there has been an ongoing problem in maintaining and improving standards of care in many aged care establishments. This factor, coupled with the uncertainty created for doctors by the medical indemnity crisis, has led some GPs and specialists to question whether they are able to maintain a regime of regular visits to older people who reside in certain aged care establishments.Last night in the adjournment debate in this House I raised on behalf of constituents very serious matters relating to a proposal to extend the Glenburn nursing home in Drumcondra in my electorate. In that speech I raised two major questions relating to the process of planning approval for the extension of that facility and the granting of a licence for 30 extra beds at the facility. I said in that speech that the two central questions that I raised spawned a myriad of ancillary questions relating to council approval processes, planning considerations, VCAT deliberations, care and safety of the aged at Glenburn, residents' rights and the appropriateness of nursing home developments in the region. I do not propose to canvass all of those matters here; however, I would like to refer to one aspect—the care and safety of older people at Glenburn nursing home should this development proceed, because it raises the sorts of care issues of real concern to doctors and other health professionals involved with the care of the aged at this nursing home and similar facilities and their reluctance to provide that care in potentially risky environments. The government allocated 30 extra beds to Glenburn following a submission for 30 additional beds, which was prepared by Mr Chris Whitehead on behalf of the proprietor, Jeff Alexander, and the company that runs the Glenburn nursing home. In August 2000, a site audit was done of the Glenburn nursing home, and Mr Whitehead was part of that assessment team. The facility in question is a nursing home which is currently located in a residential area. The proposed extension would see this facility expanded to incorporate a two-storey facility located in that area. There are serious questions being asked as to how the facility was able to get through the planning processes. There are legitimate concerns expressed by the residents of my electorate. They have also raised very important and serious concerns about this two-storey nursing home development in a residential area where parking is restricted and where the fire safety provisions can be questioned. They also raise concerns about the ultimate care of clients in this facility.I raised this nursing home as an example because I have had doctors who service clients in that facility complain about the risks that will exist for older people in that extended facility, and they have told me of their own reluctance, if this development should proceed, to service older people in that environment. I would like to reinforce the concerns of those doctors who have raised the issue of medical indemnity insurance should they be forced into a situation of discharging their medical duty to their older patients and servicing those patients in what they regard as inappropriate aged care establishments. In a letter to Minister Andrews about the proposed development, local resident Mrs Lois Trounson said:I have lived at my present address for over 60 years and the proposed nursing home would back on to my backyard. I am at a loss to understand why someone who has been pursued through the AAT, Supreme Court, High Supreme Court, back to the AAT, to close him down in Tasmania and attempt to wind him up in Geelong can have an application for 30 additional beds and funding approved.This is a constituent referring to an aged care facility in which older people reside and which doctors have said to me they may not service because of the risks associated with the older people residing in this expanded facility. Mrs Trounson continues:Another great concern to me is the fact that the developer has gained a permit for a facility that the CFA has indicated could pose a huge problem in the event of a fire. They have stated that they would be unable to gain access to the rear of the property via the back lane—the only means of access. I am 94 years old and would be very uncomfortable knowing that I was on a second storey of a building, which, if it caught fire, would pose a real problem for firefighters to gain access—and I am not a nursing home candidate. Therefore I hold very real fears for the welfare of the patients should this facility proceed.That is a concern that has been echoed by a doctor who lives in the same street as this nursing home and who is frequently called on to attend the residents of that nursing home. Mrs Trounson goes on to say in her letter:There is a great deal of far more desirable locations in the Geelong area for the hospital. These alternate locations would provide a superior quality of life (eg. greenery, larger bedrooms, bathrooms, lounge areas etc.) rather than cramming this facility in an already busy neighbourhood, and on [an] already extremely busy road. The proposed setting is totally inappropriate for many more reasons than the ones I have stated.Those reasons have been brought to my attention by a whole range of constituents in this locality who are concerned about this development. The most interesting objection has come from doctors who service the facility now, who see real dangers for nursing home residents should this expansion proceed in this residential area and who have questioned, in the face of this medical indemnity insurance crisis, whether they have the capacity in the future—in what they perceive to be a medically and physically risky environment—to service the needs of the residents of that particular facility. I mention this because in so many ways the medical indemnity insurance crisis is affecting ordinary Australians. The shadow minister has outlined in debate how this particular crisis could undermine bulk-billing—the pillar, the cornerstone, of Medicare, that great Labor initiative and universal health scheme that has won the endorsement of Australians over several decades. It is very important that we retain that Medicare system and bulk-billing, and it is very important that we overcome this particular crisis in medical indemnity insurance—because it has the potential, over time, to undermine one of the great health insurance and health care systems in the world.I raise these matters related to the Glenburn nursing home because I think they add a certain dimension to this debate. The dimension is simply this: doctors in my community—in the place where I live—have raised some very serious objections to the expansion of this facility at its present location. They have not objected to the relocation of this facility to a new, alternative area that is more appropriate; they are saying that the residents of that nursing home at this time, and future residents, may well be at risk should that development proceed. If it does proceed then they would seriously consider, given the current medical indemnity insurance arrangements, whether or not they would be able to provide services to the older people in that environment. It is a serious issue. It is a local dimension, if you like, to this debate.Today I met with the Minister for Ageing on this matter and I must say I was heartened by the discussions I had with him. He listened attentively to the points that I made with regard to this nursing home and he gave an undertaking to examine the matter to its fullest extent. I should also acknowledge here the contribution of the member for Corangamite on this issue. Although his electorate is on the other side of the Barwon River, he has taken an interest in the issue and has also made approaches to the minister, which I am grateful for. The honourable member for Corangamite and I, as many members would know, have had many stoushes on the floor of this House, on a range of issues. But on some issues we do come together in the interests of the community of Geelong. This may not seem a big issue to some but it is an important issue. It is important because it relates to the care provided by doctors to older Australians—doctors who question their ability to deliver that care under current medical indemnity insurance arrangements. We will be supporting the general thrust of this legislation before the House because it is necessary in order to underpin the provision of medical services to working Australians on an ongoing basis.21:21:009511Hartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER00AMMCowperNP10—I rise in the House to speak on the issue of provision of medical indemnity insurance. The four bills that the government has put before the House provide security to doctors and stability for the provision of health care in Australia. There has been great concern in the community over the issue of medical indemnity insurance, and the government has acted to address these concerns. The Medical Indemnity Bill 2002, the Medical Indemnity (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002, the Medical Indemnity (Enhanced UMP Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002 and the Medical Indemnity (IBNR Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002 act to address the issue of medical indemnity.The federal coalition has an outstanding record in addressing the health needs of all Australians and in particular the needs of people in rural and regional Australia. The issue of medical indemnity insurance is of course an important matter that the federal government has made a priority since the collapse of United Medical Protection. These bills currently before the House will assist in reducing the cost of medical insurance and ensure that medical services, particularly in regional and rural Australia, are maintained.The National Party and this government are absolutely committed to ensuring that first-class medical services are provided to the people of regional and rural Australia. This is evidenced by the regional health strategy announced in the 2000 budget, which provided $562 million over four years to improve access to health services for people living in regional and rural areas. No other Commonwealth government has ever invested such a significant amount of funding to enable long-term systematic reform of rural and regional health services. The regional health strategy builds on the success of the coalition's many innovations in rural health such as the GP retention program, the John Flynn scholarship and other landmark initiatives to get more doctors and services into country areas. There are a number of issues which the National Party has pushed for and the federal government has adopted in their focus on improving health services in rural and regional areas. The regional health strategy provides $210 million over four years to increase the number of doctors, specialists and allied health professionals working in country Australia. These initiatives include $102.1 million to increase the number of GPs in regional Australia. This year, 200 out of 450 vocational postgraduate training places for general practice will be located in regional and rural Australia resulting in an immediate increase in access to GP services for those in the country.Another initiative is the registrars program for trainee specialist GPs who can earn an extra $60,000 over three years by training in a rural area. The strategy includes $48.4 million for greater specialist access in regional Australia, including funding for incentives and travel costs for specialists to conduct outreach specialty work and to act as mentors for local health professionals to help them increase their skills.There is $49.5 million to fund increased allied health services in country Australia. Physiotherapy, nursing, podiatry and psychology will be provided to assist local GPS in caring for their community. The government also implemented the Rural Retention Program in 1999—a world first initiative which rewards long-serving doctors with annual bonuses based on the length of their service and the remoteness of their practice. This $60 million program is to assist rural communities to keep their doctors. To date, payments totalling approximately $20 million have been paid to over 1,600 GPs in regional and rural Australia. But the retention of highly skilled health professionals in regional areas will become all the more difficult, unless it is backed by these medical indemnity bills.It is important to note that some of the programs which are now in place are initiatives which will increase the level of health services provided to country Australia. We must remember that the delivery of health services in such areas is dependent on an integrated approach which spreads across all professionals involved in medical care. For example, having a viable medical indemnity insurance market will allow our nurses to continue their good work. As many of our colleagues will be aware, for the first time ever the federal government is providing support for practice nurses to improve the level of care Australians receive. The 2001 budget announced $104.3 million to allow general practices to employ more nurses, especially benefiting those living in regional and outer metropolitan areas.Additionally, $13 million is funding 100 new nursing scholarships worth $10,000 each to encourage more students with a regional and rural background to study nursing and to address the shortage of nurses in country areas. We have also seen the establishment of rural work force agencies in each state and the Northern Territory to look at the needs of different remote communities and help them recruit and retain their doctors through a range of initiatives. This support is worth approximately $14 million per year.To assist in delivering more doctors to rural and regional Australia, the regional health strategy provides $162 million over four years to support rural GPs' training and educational needs. The initiatives include nine new clinical schools and three new university departments of rural health being established at a cost of $117.6 million. This announcement has complemented the seven university departments that the government has established in each state and the Northern Territory since 1996 to focus on issues associated with rural health work force development. The clinical schools will ensure that senior-year medical students receive comprehensive training in the practice and procedures they will need for rural practice. There is $32.4 million from the regional health strategy to create 100 scholarships worth $20,000 per year for medical students willing to practice in rural areas for a period of at least six years. Funding will also be provided to create 100 new places within university medical schools around the country. Also, $8 million has been provided under the Rural Australia Medical Undergraduate Scholarship Scheme to enable more students with a rural background to undertake medical training. This extra funding effectively doubles the number of places available to 400. Medical graduates have the opportunity to work off their HECS debt. One-fifth of the HECS debt will be forgone for each year worked in a designated regional area at a cost of some $4.3 million. The government has extended the John Flynn scholarship to ensure that this year nearly 600 medical students will receive financial support to work in a country environment with a doctor mentor. The coalition established the James Cook University Medical School in Townsville at a cost of $10 million and the University of New South Wales Clinical School in Wagga at a cost of $13.2 million.The value of all of these initiatives depends on the existence of an affordable medical insurance market. The absence of a solid and acceptable medical indemnity insurance market effectively eliminates the incentive for many professionals to work. This would place at risk many of the services I have just mentioned which have been introduced at great expense to improve the level of service provision in regional and rural Australia.There is a range of other issues, such as $68.9 million to expand the Regional Health Services Program; $41.6 million would be spent on rural pharmacy maintenance allowance to provide assistance for the start-up of pharmacies and also to assist in keeping existing pharmacies; and small non-government hospitals in rural areas will be assisted by the $30.3 million funding being used to revitalise bush nursing hospitals to refurbish, restructure, be run more efficiently and enhance the quality of care they offer their remote communities. The strategy also allocates $14.2 million to develop and implement the chronic disease support package for small rural and regional communities to deal with conditions such as asthma, diabetes, renal failure and depression. Another $32 million was committed to increase the Medicare rebate for other medical practitioners—GPs who are not vocationally registered who practise in rural and regional Australia.In the 2001-02 budget, the coalition allocated $43.4 million to establish 32 after-hours primary medical care sites across Australia. These sites will be set up in collaboration with local GPs and will aim to provide additional services to predominantly outer metropolitan and rural areas where current access and services are poor. The measures I have mentioned demonstrate, as I have said previously, the depth of commitment this government has to providing health services in regional and rural areas. Country services are disproportionately affected by the increases in medical indemnity insurance because of the low volume of some procedures compared to city practices. We must support our rural health initiatives with reforms in the area of medical indemnity.This package of bills focuses on premium affordability for doctors and on ensuring the viability of medical indemnity organisations or MDOs into the future. The Medical Indemnity Bill 2002 will provide for determining which medical defence organisations have unfunded incurred but not reported liabilities—IBNRs. It will also allow the Commonwealth to make payments in relation to claims forming part of the unfunded IBNR liability of MDOs as at 30 June 2002 and in relation to high-cost claims and subsidies for certain medical practitioners. I know that health professionals who practise in the Cowper electorate are facing increased costs in premiums because of substantial insurance payouts.These bills will allow the Commonwealth to make payments for part of the costs of large claims against MDOs or medical indemnity insurers in relation to incidents notified after 1 January 2003. Subsidies will also be accessible to assist medical practitioners, specifically neurosurgeons, obstetricians and gynaecologists, to meet the cost of indemnity coverage. An administrative mechanism will be established to support levies on doctors to pay for the IBNR scheme and the enhanced UMP guarantee. The Medical Indemnity (IBNR Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002 supports the levy for the IBNR scheme on doctors in those MDOs with unfunded liabilities. The Medical Indemnity (Enhanced UMP Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002 allows for a levy on UMP members to cover the cost to the Commonwealth of any payment under the deed of indemnity between the Commonwealth, UMP, Australasian Medical Insurance Limited or AMIL and the provisional liquidator of UMP-AMIL. The Medical Indemnity (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 will provide for amendments to other acts necessary as a result of the medical indemnity bills. The government's incurred but not reported scheme will assist those MDOs which have unfunded IBNRs as at 30 June 2002 to pay those claims when they crystallise. The Commonwealth will help these MDOs to pay claims for which they had not adequately provisioned in the past. This scheme will give affected MDOs the chance of a fresh start, unencumbered by past unfunded IBNRs. The IBNR scheme consists of two parts. Firstly, the Commonwealth will provide funding for MDO IBNR liabilities that are unfunded as at 30 June 2002, with payouts beginning in early 2003. Secondly, it will recoup the cost of funding those liabilities through a levy on members of the MDOs with unfunded IBNRs. It is important to note that the members of medical defence organisations whose incurred but not reported claims are fully funded as at 30 June 2002 will not pay the levy. It is also important to note—and I know medical practitioners in the Cowper electorate will welcome this—that those who belong to medical defence organisations that have fully provisioned for their IBNRs will not be subject to the levy. For those practitioners who are liable to pay the levy, it will be set as a proportion; the maximum will equal 50 per cent of the medical indemnity premium they paid in the 2000-01 financial year. This means that it will reflect the risks borne by different practitioner groups—an approach that is strongly favoured by medical organisations.In this package of bills the Commonwealth will also introduce a scheme, known as the High Cost Claims Scheme, to address the issue of high cost claims related to medical incidents. We are all aware of some of the recently reported landmark claims, and this scheme attempts to address the quantum of these claims. The scheme should lower premiums by reducing the potential cost of large claims to insurers. Under this scheme, the Commonwealth will meet 50 per cent of the cost of claims for payments greater than $2 million, and up to the insured amount, made by medical indemnity insurers. This scheme will apply to claims notified on or after 1 January 2003. It will not apply to claims relating to the provision of public hospital services. By meeting 50 per cent of the cost of payouts over $2 million by medical indemnity providers in relation to high cost claims, the Commonwealth is working to ensure, among other things, that adequate cover is available where incidents result in catastrophic injuries to patients. This scheme is also an effective way to address the exposure and uncertainty associated with high cost claims in medical indemnity insurance.Premium affordability, and the consequent impacts on service provision, is a vital issue for medical practitioners, particularly in regional and rural Australia. The National Party and, indeed, the government are absolutely committed to ensure that health care providers are not restricted by prohibitive premiums in their service delivery in regional areas. If you take away the incentive to provide the care, you jeopardise the service delivery right across the nation. This particularly applies to specialists in regional areas who are facing high premiums, but who may not have the volume of clients that their metropolitan based colleagues experience. This package puts in place the foundations of the Commonwealth's subsidy scheme for doctors. The subsidy scheme will be applied in the following ways. The subsidy will be provided to obstetricians, neurosurgeons and GP proceduralists who undertake Medicare billable procedures. It will be equivalent to 50 per cent of the difference between the cost of their premiums, plus the IBNR levy if applicable, and the corresponding costs for gynaecologists, general surgeons and non-procedural GPs respectively in the relevant state and territory. In light of the particularly high premium costs faced by some neurosurgeons, combined with their relatively limited scope to derive income from private practice, the subsidy rate will increase to 80 per cent on that portion of their premium, plus levy if applicable, that exceeds $50,000. Accessing the subsidy will be conditional on medical practitioners participating in quality and safety programs designed to protect patients and minimise the incidence of injuries. Approaches will be examined to minimise the need for rural doctors to be absent from their practices. The federal coalition has shown true leadership in addressing the medical indemnity issues which have confronted doctors for the last year. We have provided a guarantee to those medical practitioners who were left exposed following the collapse of UMP-AMIL. That guarantee has now been extended to the end of 2003 to allow UMP-AMIL to make payments under cover to members and provide security during the formulation of a long-term strategy for the industry.Today we have before us the bills which will put in place a framework which will provide security for those who provide health care right across the nation. I know my constituents of Cowper will welcome the positive outcomes which these bills will bring to our electorate. As I detailed previously, the coalition government has a proud record of addressing the challenges of providing improved health care for all Australians, particularly for those who live in rural and regional areas. When you look right across the spectrum of health care in regional areas, there are programs in place to improve the delivery of medical services: incentives for rural doctors, the education of medical staff and now, with these bills, improvements in the field of medical indemnity. All these initiatives show leadership in improving one of our key priorities—the provision of better health care, particularly in regional areas.It is therefore essential that we embrace these medical indemnity bills to make sure that insurance is affordable and that we can provide medical practitioners with the security to carry on providing first-class services to all Australians. Considerable work has been done by this government in taking the lead in tort law reform. I believe these bills, working in conjunction with tort law reform by the states, should work to substantially improve the situation in relation to medical indemnity. I must say I was pleased to hear the member for Corio offering his support for these very important bills. I commend these bills to the House.21:39:009515Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00— The Medical Indemnity Bill 2002, the Medical Indemnity (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002, theMedical Indemnity (Enhanced UMP Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002 and, last but by no means least, the Medical Indemnity (IBNR Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002 are an interesting set of bills. This very important set of cognate bills is enough to rivet the attention of the member for Parramatta, the parliamentary secretary at the table! The member for Parramatta has seen this parliament deal with cognate bills time after time, and it has been a case of, `Well, you may as well do them as a job lot rather than take up the time of the parliament dealing with one bill after another seriatim.' Of course, these bills do share a concordance in terms of the problem that they are trying to address, but they also share a concordance in terms of what they underline as the insufficiencies (1) of the government, (2) of the medical insurance industry as a whole and (3) of insurance in Australia generally. These bills highlight the government's inability as a government that does not believe in being hands-on—despite the philosophical ramifications that the member for Parramatta has attempted to introduce into the coalition: the fundamental notions of what a Liberal Party should undertake as an engaged entity, taking a Benthamite approach to trying to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number, trying to reinvigorate the party's notion of the core reality that John Stuart Mill was talking about in his great exposition On Liberty, which the member for Parramatta and others in the coalition are very au fait with. The redefinition of liberalism, which the parliamentary secretary at the table has had a great deal to do with, does not go far enough, because it cannot adequately capture the problems that there are in the market, despite the fact that the member for Parramatta is not only enamoured of the libertarian approaches taken by Bentham and Mill but also those of Adam Smith. The core and fundamental problem with Adam Smith was that his faith in the market was misplaced. Adam Smith did not understand that unregulated markets do not lead to eternal good—you need a sense of participatory regulation from a governmental entity to actually make the thing work competitively and to make it work properly and profitably for all involved. Now that we have got the attention of the parliamentary secretary, despite the fact that he is actually wandering from the table to consult the Deputy Speaker, we might deal with these cognate bills and what they throw up in terms of the problems not only that society has had but also that the government has had in coming to terms with it. The medical profession in Australia is extremely important, and not only in Sydney. Bankstown airport, in my electorate, is at the geographical centre point of Sydney. The member for Parramatta understands that, because he is just outside the locus of the centre of Sydney, which is, as I said, in the electorate of Blaxland, Parramatta being proximate. The member for Lingiari, who is at the table representing the ALP, understands that medical indemnity is very important for regional Australia.10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—Order! There is too much audible chatter in the chamber.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I could not hear them, but your hearing is very acute. It is another medical matter we might deal with as we deal with these bills! When we are dealing with these issues, we are dealing not only with central metropolitan concerns, such as in Sydney, which affect Blaxland and Parramatta, but with issues which affect regional Australia—and indeed remote Australia in the case of the member for Lingiari. He is a great proponent of the need for greater resources to be centred in regional and remote Australia to deal with the particular problems that his constituents face.But what we face here in this cognate series of bills is a fundamental failing systemically; a fundamental failing of this government; a fundamental failing of the free market system that has so readily been apprehended and embraced by the member for Parramatta—the good parliamentary secretary that he is, the failed interjector that he is—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Why are you pushing him forward?LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—I am pushing him forward, mate, in order to knock him down. That is just a debating point.10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—The member for Blaxland will not respond to the interjections.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—The member for Parramatta understands in a primitive way that the free market economy cannot be embraced on its own. In the period of mercantilism—embracing the late 17th century to the early 18th century and into the 19th century when mercantilism merged into the great age of industrialism between 1870 and 1900—what was laid open and bare to the bone was that market forces on their own, untrammelled, led to great social ills. That was apparent in the United Kingdom and the United States. It was even apparent in probably the most significant, powerful and forceful of the 1870 to 1900 industrialisers—Germany, both Prussia and the associated states. They understood that there was enormous power in education, that there was enormous power in governmental activity and that there was probably more power in that than there was in what was put forward in the US and in Britain in the ideology of mercantilism transposed into the new and unfettered industrialism.The Germans realised fundamentally that there was a place for the government, there was a place for a bureaucratic element and there was also a place for ensuring the end results of what governments chose to do. In doing that, in arguing that there was a place in the modern era for what we understand as a public-private partnership, they were arguing that the excesses of the late 19th century in the rogue capitalism of the United States and to a lesser extent Britain showed that you cannot have an untrammelled market—you could, but it probably would not be successful. Certainly you should not have a supposedly free market where the operations of the free market do not really work. In the cognate bills that we are dealing with we are faced with a very simple problem. If you simply argue that government should get out of the area and should leave it to private industry, you cannot do it in one way only. People did argue this during the Fraser period—people like the current Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong. He argued it as an unsuccessful Treasurer, one who lost almost every battle he had to the quite socialist Fraser—that is how Malcolm Fraser is regarded as being at that time, and in fact he is regarded as being increasingly socialist with the passing of the years. If you took the point of view of the member for Bennelong from 1974 through to the crucial period 1978 to February-March 1983—a period in which he failed on point after point in trying to introduce his philosophies—you would see that you cannot do it one way only. You cannot give everything to the market and expect markets to work unencumbered and to work with perfection. Even the member for Parramatta would not expect that, given the fact that the member for Parramatta has thought about these things deeply, more so than many of his colleagues, I think. It is not an unreflective acceptance of either Mill, Burke—even as a conservative—or any of the other people in the current pantheon that has taken so much of a hold.There is a fundamental reality here: if you do not pay in, you do not get anything back. The government is faced with not just a market failure; the government is faced with pure greed, pure exploitation and pure selfishness on the part of those medical practitioners who thought they had a good thing going in keeping the little racket they had organised for themselves—the fact that they could do medical indemnity insurance on the cheap. If you are going to do medical insurance on the cheap, there are some people who are going to be worse off—our constituents. They will be the ones who will suffer in the end. The government may also have to suffer in the end because it has to grapple with the inadequacies of what has been put up.This is a wonderful illustration of the disconjunction between ideology and ideological approaches to things and the fundamental, practical accounting and economic realities that any organisation, any institution or any association may face. It seemed a good idea at the time for the surgeons and the practitioners to put their money into the central organisation that provided most of the funds to cover medical insurance. It was reasonable; it did not overtax them. They sort of realised that it was done on the cheap but it was a good thing at the time. We found when reality came knocking at the door that the arrangements were not right; the arrangements were transparently problematic.Constituents of the member for Parramatta, the member for Lingiari, those who have spoken before in this debate—nay, even Deputy Speaker Barresi, who is in the chair—have realised that, without adequate resources to our local hospitals, our local GPs, our local specialists and those they refer us to in life-threatening situations, our lives are held cheaply. They are held cheaply because a number of people—indeed, possibly the majority—in the medical profession thought that the deal that they were offered was too hard to refuse, that it was cheap but good, and that it might last forever.That is a natural reaction of most people. Indeed, we see it in the parliament day after day, week after week, in the person of the Treasurer: that sort of hopeful optimism that projects whatever the current circumstances are almost exponentially into the future. We have seen it in past governments as well. But if you project current circumstances indefinitely, you will be fundamentally wrong. The medical insurance companies that failed projected current circumstances well into the future. They underprojected the demands on their funds and resources. In the end they left a set of medical practitioners high and dry because they did not tell them the truth. They were not laid open, as they would lay their patients open in surgery or under the knife in the theatre, to the practical realities of the medical situation they faced. They were not laid open to the bare accounting realities of how much money they would have to front up with in insurance terms to adequately cover their insurance risk. This has nothing to do with the twin towers and it effectively has nothing to do with the other great area of unanswered responsibility: the question of public liability Australia wide. This has to do with a closed profession with a closed mind and a closed set of insurers who would not confront reality. This government, which does not believe in public intervention, in 1996 quite openly had a paper published that was, from memory, about one inch thick. It was wonderful and shiny, with a bright yellow cover to attract the attention of the parliamentary secretary, the Deputy Speaker or anyone else in the parliament and the National Commission of Audit. The paper basically laid out that a coalition federal government would have nothing to do with direct services to any individual in Australia because it thought its whole game was to get out of public enterprise and public responsibility.I know that deep down in his heart of hearts the member for Parramatta would know—as the Deputy Speaker, Mr Barresi, would know—that you cannot run away from reality. You cannot run away from public responsibility. There was a dysfunctional fault line at the centre of this. It was that, if no-one else fronted up to the realities of the situation, in the end the Australian buck would stop at the doorstep of the Prime Minister and this parliament. That is why we are faced with the Medical Indemnity Bill 2002, the Medical Indemnity (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002, the Medical Indemnity (Enhanced UMP Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002 and the Medical Indemnity (IBNR Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002.There has been a total failure not only of the market in terms of medical insurance but also of the marketeers. There has been a total failure of the insurers who had a responsibility not only to the medical practitioners who put their funds with them but also to the patients who, in the end, were reliant on them for cover for the medical practitioners' uses. People went to Bankstown Hospital, Liverpool Hospital or any of the great hospitals in Sydney—or, indeed, to the great hospital in Alice Springs, in the case of the member for Lingiari—to have surgery for life-threatening cases. They did not want to think too much in terms of medical responsibility and medical indemnity. If they had paid their money into private insurance or had rightly been paying their tax funds into Medicare, they would expect that, if they had life-threatening conditions, their surgeons would be there to save their lives.If there is one fundamental in the health area, it is that you can expect that our professionals—acting professionally and supported by a medical indemnity insurance regime that cossets and protects them—are able to do their jobs to save our lives and protect the lives of our families and friends; and that they will not have to put their professional integrity on the line to ensure that they can do their jobs. This government—unwillingly, let it be said—has been forced, in this set of cognate bills, to deal with the fact that the Australian medical profession failed. They failed to pay their money up front to cover themselves. They failed to ensure that their key insurer did the job it should have been doing from day one. It should have been covering not only the medical profession's responsibilities and liabilities but also all of their patients, so that we could be assured that if we fell into difficulties—whether we were on the Labor side or the coalition side and whatever our views on the market and government intervention—then the Australian medical system and Australian medical insurance would cover us. Our doctors should have been willing to pay a high enough premium to cover themselves but also a set of premiums that was reasonable.It is not sufficient to argue that all you have to do is cover yourself in these situations. We have had a fundamental failure of the market here. We have had that failure because the market participants were given an easy ride. They did not have to pay out the proper amounts. They did not have to contribute in order to ensure their relative safety was covered through insurance. So, in the end, the buck stops with the Australian people. In the end, all of the jargon, all of the argument and all of the ideological approaches—whether they be Mill, the more conservative Burke or the rest of the pantheon the coalition looks to—fail. Markets always fail. Markets without government intervention and government underwriting fundamentally fail. We are here picking up the pieces and putting in the dollars because of a market failure. These bills attempt to redress it. (Time expired)21:59:009519Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10—In rising to speak on the Medical Indemnity Bill 2002 and related bills, I have to say that I am not going to be able to call up antecedents from the 16th and 17th centuries as the previous speaker, the member for Blaxland, did. But, against what the member for Corio and the member for Shortland may have said earlier, the government has to be congratulated for showing leadership in two areas: medical indemnity and public liability in general. Those are two areas that obviously have got out of control, and the government has held national summits to deal with them. For somebody with an electorate like mine, absolutely nothing is more important than having a health system—and a specialist system, which is probably more to the point in this debate—that can support our communities, whether we need obstetrics, neurosurgery or specialist GP services, so that we know we have somewhere we can go. In an electorate like mine, which goes from Broken Hill to Dubbo to Parkes, you do not have that many choices about where you can go for these kinds of specialist services. The government's medical indemnity legislation package—specifically, the offer to extend the existing guarantee to United Medical Protection and Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd to 31 December 2003—is the safety net rural communities must have to ensure the protection of specialist services.There are any number of Australians who, unfortunately, have brought about the need for legislation—whether it be in relation to public liability in general or medical indemnity—and who have expectations that can never be met. It may be that they do not know the onus of responsibility they have to themselves or that they are expecting more of any practitioner than he or she can possibly give. I never cease to be amazed when I hear some of the claims that are made on not just the medical profession but people through insurance claims in general. As a nation, we have to have some measure of responsibility and we have to have some limit on what we can expect from a doctor, a surgeon or anybody in any walk of life that has a responsibility to others. When I hear about doctors being sued up to 23 years after an action may have been taken, like most Australians I shake my head and wonder where we are getting to.The legislation we are debating is absolutely necessary, and I commend the government for having the leadership to bring together all the Australian governments, as I said, whether it be on public liability or, in this case, on medical indemnity. I must congratulate the government on doing this, presenting what is very necessary. However, unless Australia as a whole starts to take a grip on where we are heading, we are never going to entirely settle the problem. There is a limit to what you can expect in performance from anyone, and doctors are probably in the gun there more than anybody. If somebody does not show incompetence, if somebody does not show that they are under the influence of some outside trigger but has done their level best, I wonder how people can sue them for having done what is obviously their level best. People go through the training and they are obviously judged by their peers to be competent. Without any doubt, many people simply want a perfect child; we all do. But, if we do not get one, we have to stop short of looking for an excuse to sue somebody to try to rectify something that can never be rectified.When UMP was put in the hands of the administrator, the government stepped in to ensure that all Australians, particularly those in country areas, had continued access to specialist services and GP proceduralists. We picked up the tab from 29 April and will continue to do that to ensure, as I said, that people like paediatricians, obstetricians and neurosurgeons—not that there are any in my electorate; we have to travel to Western Sydney to access one—are there to be used by our people. I cannot emphasise enough just how crucial these services are to the electorate of Parkes. Government intervention has ensured that the much-needed services I mentioned and the specialist GP services can continue. For people in outlying communities such as Broken Hill, accessibility is crucial. Look at paediatrics. Without that service, people in Broken Hill would have to travel 300 kilometres to Mildura or 500 or 600 kilometres to Adelaide. The fact is that the smaller communities could not support these professionals—especially obstetricians—and we would have to travel to capital cities. In towns like Parkes, Dubbo and Broken Hill, we do have, I am happy to say, those who specialise in obstetrics and paediatrics and specialised GPs. We are tonight, I hope, passing bills to make it possible for all Australians, especially country Australians, to continue to enjoy the level of security we have had in the past. This government has probably done more to improve medical services in country areas in the last six years than has been done in the last 20. The amount of money—some $700 million—that has been put into trying to retain doctors, let alone specialist doctors, in rural areas has been quite outstanding. The intake of country students into medical schools around Australia has gone up from around eight per cent to around 25 per cent in a very short period of time, but that will not avail us much if the specialists within that fraternity are not available to look after our people on the spot. I commend the bills before us tonight. I commend the minister and the government for taking the action to bring together all the states and governments in Australia to deal with it. The great pity is, whether it be on medical indemnity or general public liability, we cannot be as responsible on this issue as we are on many others.22:08:009520Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the Medical Indemnity Bill 2002 bill and cognate bills tonight. They include a proposal from the minister to fund the incurred but not reported liabilities of medical defence organisations in situations where they do not have the adequate reserves to cover these liabilities, with a levy on members to fund the scheme. They also include a high-cost claims scheme to enable the Commonwealth to fund 50 per cent of the costs of pay-outs by medical indemnity insurers for sums greater than $2 million up to the limit of a practitioner's indemnity cover, as well as direct premium subsidies for doctors with especially high medical indemnity premiums. That scheme covers obstetricians and the like.While these bills will certainly go a long way towards capping rising medical indemnity insurance premiums for doctors, they need to be backed by the states with significant tort and legal system reforms. As well, this bill provides for an incurred but not reported indemnity, IBNR, scheme. The reality is that some MDOs just do not have adequate funds to meet these claims for which they are liable but which have not yet been reported. These MDOs have not been charging high enough premiums. The government scheme, through this legislation, will ensure that MDOs with unfunded IBNRs are able to fund these liabilities over time through an affordable levy.I would like to refer to some issues raised by the member for Lilley in his address to the House. He touched on the level of bulk-billing in Australia. The member for Lilley was very fulsome in his criticism of the government, as he always is. In an article in the Australian Financial Review of 27 November, the shadow minister for health and ageing, Mr Smith, said:... the additional amount picked up by Australians and their families for increases in GP copayments alone is $331 million ...'This requires some in-depth examination. I am grateful to the member for Boothby, who has done a great deal of research on levels of bulk-billing. He found that in 1990-91, the level of bulk-billing for vocationally registered GPs was 70.1 per cent . In September 2002, the figure was 70.4 per cent—virtually the same. The cries that the level of bulk-billing has declined are simply fatuous. The figures are the same now as they were 11 and 12 years ago. In fact, in 1984-85, the percentage of bulk-billing for total services was 43.2 per cent. I thank the member for Boothby for his excellent research in this area. What was the response of the government of the day in 1990-91 to the low level—70.1 per cent—of bulk-billing? The response proposed by the then minister, the Hon. Brian Howe, to these low levels of bulk-billing was to reduce the Medicare rebate. By the way, he did not see the figure of 70.1 per cent as being low; he actually saw it as very high, dangerously high. He reduced the Medicare rebate in November 1991 by $3.50 and subsequently, in November 1992, by $1.50. This was a copayment proposal which was later withdrawn. But the government of the day and the then minister for health found that the bulk-billing rate, which was the same as it is today, was too high. Isn't it amazing how the Labor Party changes their tune?It is very interesting to look back through time—although not back to the 18th century, as the member for Blaxland did. He spoke about market forces being untrammelled in regard to the situation with medical indemnity and said that you cannot give everything to the market. Looking back in time, in answer to a question from Mr Melham about decreasing the Medicare rebate, Mr Howe said:I am aware of reports which say that this change will discourage bulk billing and encourage doctors to lift their fees. I must stress that the government does not control or determine doctors' charges or whether they bulk bill or raise an account to the patient. These things are determined by the competitive forces or the marketplace.He went on to say:The national health strategy background paper No. 5 on the effect of co-payments on medical care clearly demonstrates that the major reason why doctors bulk bill is the competitive pressure on them to do so. Doctors who bulk bill do so now because they know it is attractive to patients and they wish to maintain a viable practice.Despite the copayments that were being introduced, he further went on to say:... I am confident that Medicare will continue to operate to ensure very high rates of bulkbilling.Mind you, he saw 70.1 per cent as being a very high rate of bulk-billing. I do wish the member for Lilley would check Labor's history; and I am grateful to the member for Boothby for supplying those figures. According to the Labor Party and the then minister for health, we now have in Australia a very high rate of bulk-billing. In fact, were Mr Howe here now, he would no doubt still be trying to reduce the Medicare rebate through a copayment. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of Mr Howe's book when he was Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services in the Labor government.I will comment on other suggestions for dealing with the so-called low level of bulk-billing—which, as we are now aware, the Labor Party in 1991 saw as a very high level of bulk-billing. It is interesting to look back and see how former Minister Howe was viewed then. I refer to the valedictory that Mr Keating, the then Prime Minister, gave for Mr Howe. He said:... Brian enjoyed more substantial power than probably anybody in the Left of the Labor Party, or in the Left in Australia, since the war. While we have seen other luminaries on the stage, few have been as effective.`Hear, hear' to that. The minister for health saw 70.1 per cent of bulk-billing as being a very high level—in fact, this luminary of the Left saw it as being so high that he decided it was necessary to reduce the rebate. We certainly should not ignore the advice from luminaries on the Left with regard to bulk-billing and Medicare rebates.What theories now abound to address this level of bulk-billing? An article in the Age on 12 November suggested that country doctors have larger Medicare payments than their city colleagues and that country and city practices be offered bonus payments for agreeing to bulk-bill patients. Remember that this is for a level of bulk-billing that, according to the Labor Party in 1990-91 and one of their luminaries, was very high. As a rural and regional MP, let me explain what would happen were rural doctors to receive a higher level of rebate.I make the point that rural doctors work very hard. The doctors in my electorate, there is no doubt, are exhausted. A practice has just closed. The two very good doctors in that practice advertised Australia-wide but could not attract a partner or a locum, and so they closed their practice. The reality is that the exhausted rural doctors will not find their colleagues in metropolitan areas saying, `Oh, we've got an additional Medicare rebate. What we'll do is tell our wives'—or husbands, as the case may be—`to leave their job and their friends in the city; we'll sell the house, we'll take the kids out of school and we'll relocate to Proserpine, Ayr, the Pioneer Valley, Sarina or the Mallee.' That is not going to happen. When you think about it, do you really imagine that people, including those in rural doctors associations—whom I have the greatest regard for—will uproot their family, leave their friends, sell their house and move to a country town because they will receive more money from the taxpayer? No, they will not. Putting aside the merits of giving country doctors a higher income, the reality is that it will not solve the problem of maldistribution of doctor numbers in my electorate and in most rural and regional electorates. We just do not have enough doctors in rural and regional Australia. I agree with the member for Blaxland when he says that reality is knocking at the door. He is quite right—reality is knocking at the door. It is probably the only thing that he said that I agree with, but he was right. We have a maldistribution of doctors. We do not need the cute suggestions coming from many doctor groups that we increase the Medicare rebate for rural doctors; although there may be other sound arguments for doing that, it will not increase the number of rural doctors. I suggest that we need geographically-allocated Medicare provider numbers; it should lie with the divisions of general practice in various areas. The truth is that doctors will not move from the cities to rural and regional—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—That'll be good. I'm for that.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I'm amazed; the Labor Party agrees with something.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Yes, I'm for that. I'm sure the government won't be, though.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—No other measure will encourage doctors to come and serve in rural and regional areas. I have heard the argument that it is civil conscription, but nobody is forcing a doctor to move to any area of Australia. They should not be forced. But, if the Medicare provider number is there with the division of general practice, you either take it up or you do not. If you want to live by the taxpayers' dollar, you need to serve where the need exists. As a rural and regional member, I have to say that quite often there is a lot of criticism that some of our constituents are subsidised. I disagree with that.But let me tell you of one group that undoubtedly is subsidised, and that is doctors. A proportion of their income is given via the largesse of the taxpayer. The truth is that, in many areas, those very same taxpayers who contribute to supporting Medicare arrangements through their Medicare levy and all their other taxes and charges—because, as we know, the Medicare levy goes nowhere near paying for medical costs in Australia—do not have access to doctors at the same rate as their metropolitan cousins, and they are justified in asking why that situation should continue.I will close on that note. I support wholeheartedly the legislation tonight. But I disagree with the member for Lilley—as does Mr Howe, the previous minister for health. We do not have a low level of bulk-billing; we have a very high level of bulk-billing, and well may it last. We do need to address very quickly the maldistribution of doctors, particularly for rural and regional areas. I commend the bill to the House.22:22:009522Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I too rise in support of the Medical Indemnity Bill 2002 and associated legislation mainly to put to rest a number of points on what these bills are really about. We on this side of the House, while supporting the legislation, are very, very concerned that the government as a whole has not examined fully what the indemnity of doctors is about. When we look at the whole package of legislation that is the subject of this cognate debate, what we as government and opposition have to make sure of is that we have ongoing and viable medical indemnity insurance.The package of legislation we are debating here tonight is a very short-term measure. If what we want is future reliability of insurance for doctors, these bills do not cover all the points. We are certainly concerned to make sure that one of the objectives of the legislation is to bring down the cost of medical indemnity insurance premiums, but the doctors at large are talking about where they are going to go in the future in being covered by insurance levies. In listening to the debate tonight, I was particularly interested in what the member for Dawson said. The member for Dawson gave the impression that people's problems with the availability of doctors are only in rural areas. I can advise the member for Dawson and any other National Party members—and the Liberal Party as well—that, if you come to areas of Western Sydney, you will find that at times the shortage of doctors is far greater as a percentage of population than many rural members have probably been experiencing in the past. I do not believe that this very short-term measure will overcome that.We are looking at the medical indemnity insurance scheme that was announced by the government on 23 October 2002. It is certainly looking at a subsidy; it is certainly looking at providing a backup of guarantee to many doctors in the community at large and giving them assurances that they can continue to carry on their professions. But we have to do a little more than that. We have to be able to do more than just say to them, `We're going to give you that indemnity.' We are going to have to say that we are going to provide for the future without injuring patients who may be thinking in times to come of suing their doctors or suing doctors who may be incompetent. As legislators, we need to be able to provide a package that gives the community at large a level playing field where we know where we will be going in the future. Our medical profession may say that they are highly skilled, highly trained professionals and they know what they are doing. I say to them, `You are only human. You do occasionally make mistakes.' We do not always hear about them, but still they do happen.When we are talking about packages of bills like the one before the House tonight, we have to look at the availability of provisions for organisations that are using state government funds, federal government funds and their own funds and who are at least servicing the community. They have got to have a guarantee—I know that—but so has the community.Turning to the other bills in this cognate debate, I think of things like cost recovery. Where do we go from there? What are the major problems we may have with the package? Has there been enough consultation? Is the package itself a significant step forward? Are the goals that we are trying to achieve related to what the objectives are with the medical profession at large? Have we taken on board enough community concerns? Have we been able to evaluate some of the problems that have been experienced in the past but have now come forward as major problems?If we look at some of the claims that have been made both at the community level and at the medical professional level, we wonder whether those claims have gone far enough. Are they substantial in terms of what they are trying to achieve? When we look at the regimes that we are trying to implement as parliamentarians and legislators, have we gone far enough? Are we looking at what the minister is trying to achieve with the factors determining what we are classifying as non-participating MDOs? Do they have sufficient funds to pay their non-reported liabilities? There are many still unanswered questions.I know we on this side of the House keep saying that we are going to agree with the bills. We will probably move a minor amendment, and in the Senate we will probably go more definitively into the bills. But we have to give a lot of consideration to where we are going in the future and to future legislation before the House.As I said, we certainly will support the bills. But in that support of the bills we have to be sure that we are not going to have a recurrent problem in the future. As I have said, personally I do not believe that these bills have gone far enough. I know that the Commonwealth is looking at perhaps paying a percentage of doctors' claims. We are looking at a payment that could be made by the Commonwealth to the MDOs or to the insurers being determined by a multiplying factor. I would like to have more answers as to what that multiplying factor is. I know that there are a number of exceptions, and that will be made clear in the future. In my area of Western Sydney, we have some very competent doctors; we also have some doctors who are very wary. For example, some doctors are very wary of going into obstetrics. They are saying to us, `We're going to move out of that profession because we don't believe that we're going to be covered with enough insurance indemnity to avoid facing future charges.' We as human beings have greater expectations than we had 20 or 30 years ago. In those days, when we went into hospital and put our life into the hands of a doctor, we believed that everything they were doing was right and above board. Today we seem to question a lot more of the decisions that they are making. As a profession, doctors are also concerned about that questioning—whether their professional capabilities are being questioned by the patient. Let me say this to the medical profession: that probably is not the case; what is being considered by the patient is the right to know. That is what I am really saying about these bills before the House. The important thing is the right to know. Are we certain of what we are doing and what we are trying to cover? Are we certain that every step that we are taking here now is going to be covered? Are we really certain that the medical profession will be happy with this? If they are not, they are going to be coming back to us—this year, next month, next year—and saying, `Well, it's not enough; we are still going to abandon obstetrics' or `We're not going to go into orthopaedics' or `We've decided that we're not going to operate any more.'We do not need that. We need to have bills that will have the answers to some of the problems that the community at large has been experiencing. We need to have the bills debated before the House when we know that both sides of the House are in total agreement—when we feel that every `i' has been dotted and every `t' has been crossed. I am not certain that that has happened in the cognate debate that we have before the House tonight. After talking to members of the medical profession, I am also not certain whether they feel absolutely confident of what these bills will do. I know the legislative reforms are designed to ease the pressure that has been placed on the providers of medical indemnity. I say to them, `What are the pressures? Are there more ways to overcome them?'Adjournment952410000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.952422:30:009524Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The Maturity Matters conference which was held in Perth at the end of October focused on a number of issues relating to our ageing population. They included economic and social issues brought about through Australia's declining birthrate, improved health services resulting in people living longer and employment insecurity resulting in many working people being placed prematurely in the early retirement category. We are told that, on present trends, this will result in the current job scarcity transforming into an employee and skill shortage by 2020. In the meantime, Australia has the twofold problem of older workers losing their jobs and an increasing cost of providing financial support for older Australians. There is also a problem for older Australians who have provided for their retirement in the form of superannuation, because their entitlements are being affected by the drought, overseas political issues and general fluctuations of the Australian and overseas financial markets.The general view is that, in order to provide for an increasing ageing population, the government needs to provide for increased spending on retirement incomes or increased contributions to superannuation funds, review health services for older Australians and provide for an increased involvement of mature-age workers in the production of goods and services. To overcome these problems, a number of dangerous suggestions are being put forward. In the Sunday Telegraph last week, there is an article which states: The qualifying age for a pension will be raised to 70 under a Finance Department submission to reduce the financial burden of Australia's ageing population.Earlier in the year, Senator Coonan actually raised the possibility of doing away with the age pension altogether. These are dangerous suggestions that would certainly be opposed by the Australian Labor Party.On the issue of recruiting older people, the New South Wales Police Force is setting an example: people older than the normal recruiting age are now being accepted into the police force. But private employers do not appear to be recognising the value of older workers, if you take the view of the Qantas chief information officer, Fiona Balfour. She is quoted in an article in the Australian on Tuesday, 12 November, where she refers to the possible lay-off of IT staff. She states:This is a remarkably middle-aged group—we are struggling to find enough space to recruit graduates, who we can recruit for tuppence.Further in the article, Ms Balfour refers to a suggestion that Qantas may consider outsourcing its IT work to India. She says:My preference is to have the work done in Australia. The whole point is, if you want support for these older systems in the future, these skills will not be available in Australia. In five to 10 years we might have to.That is, they might have to outsource work to India. This raises two issues that I have spoken about in the past: firstly, the need for lifelong learning for Australian workers—which was another major theme of the Maturity Matters conference—to ensure that people's skills do not become redundant; and, secondly, the need to retain our manufacturing industry so that our skill base remains in Australia. To return to our friendly Qantas executive, Ms Balfour is further quoted as saying:What is the average age of this group—That reminds me of a report tabled in this parliament in June 2000 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations titled Age counts. I will quote from one submission from this report. It states:Drake's research shows that negative attitudes about older workers was widespread. About 70 per cent of Australian firms said that they would retrench executives over 50 ahead of others because they saw them as inflexible and unwilling to change. Negative attitudes about older executives refusing to reskill, however, are not proven since `86 per cent of senior workers are more than happy to take up training opportunities when offered to them.' Clearly there is a need for a change of attitude by private employers relating to the employment of older workers. A positive spin on employing older workers was put to the standing committee by Professor Encel, who explained:... if you train a 25-year-old in cutting edge technology, what you actually do is make him or her more mobile. So the guarantee that they will stay with the firm that trained them is very thin ...There is no doubt that Australians are living longer, which raises many opportunities and challenges for our policy makers. Indeed, the survival of our high standard of living will depend on us harnessing the skills and commitment of our maturing population.952522:35:009525Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—In the middle of the Nowra CBD we have a very large Telstra tower. It adjoins a public car park, through which many people travel during the day. You cannot miss it. A couple of weeks ago it was the scene of a very visible, very public act of desperation. A 19-year-old man decided that he would take his life, and he selected the tower as the stage for his final act. He hung himself in full view of the public and, by this gesture, reflected a suicide carried out by his friend 12 months earlier in the very same place. You have to ask yourself why. I do not know the background of these two young men. I had never met them and I still do not know what drove them to do this. I do know that I was shocked and uncomprehending of the act, particularly that it happened in such a public fashion. It was very significant to me because, that very same week, I opened the Southern Highlands Yellow Ribbon for Life program. This group, of which I am patron, was set up to provide a suicide prevention program in the Southern Highlands. It is claimed that the suicide rate for the Wingecarribee Shire is higher than the state average. In fact, Bundanoon, a small town in the shire in my electorate of Gilmore, had a spate of suicides about three years ago that spiked the average and compelled me to speak in this House on the subject. This is what the Southern Highlands News wrote at the time: No-one knows for sure why sleepy Bundanoon has been hit with an extraordinary wave of suicides.The reason for one death was clear enough—the 77-year-old business man was in failing health. One other victim in his 30s was soon to be retrenched, but, apparently, was optimistic about his future.The youngest victim, 19, had a secure life and a bright future. He was nothing like the stereotyped young suicide victim. He was working with his dad in the family tree-clearing business and he was popular. He had prospects, money in the bank, and the support of his mum, dad and older sister ... but none of that was in his mind when he killed himself.In Bundanoon there seem to be few answers. This episode served as a catalyst for the Yellow Ribbon for Life program in the district. The theme of the program is `It's okay to ask for help'. Any attempt at suicide is a cry for help, but there needs to be someone out there to listen. When I was sent the letter of invitation to address the group, I was reminded in the background paper that each death represents between 30 and 40 attempts at self-harm. That is 30 or 40 times that someone is calling for help. Each death means it is 30 or 40 times that no-one has listened. I acknowledge the dedication of the people in the group—people like Barbara McKern, who is a practising psychologist, Robin Knowles and Lee Ryall. I would like to pay tribute to them and everyone associated with suicide prevention.I was moved by a young survivor, Andrew Cairns, who spoke honestly and eloquently. Because he went through the experience himself and was brought back from the brink, his story was all the more compelling. As he said, he was at a low point and, through the simple act of intervention, he has moved on. Barbara says that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem—how true. If there is someone there who can reach through the darkest gloom and throw us a lifeline by giving us options, that is all we need. While I was at the opening, sitting listening and watching, I was taken by the sense of community and the spirituality that filled the room. You could hear a pin drop. Some were listening intently, as I was; some were weeping silently; and some were engrossed in their own thoughts. I had seen nothing like it, and I was moved to share this with you.Kevin O'Neill is the temporary head of the mental health team in the district. He was instrumental in getting the program under way and is a man committed entirely to his beliefs. Kevin felt there had to be a way of telling someone that you wanted help, and a card to pass to a trusted friend is perhaps a way of doing this. In a time of need, the card, which will be distributed throughout the community, can be given to someone prepared to listen. People wearing a yellow ribbon have registered their interest in being prepared to listen. These people have been given initial training to give help in whichever way they can. The card has on it instructions for the listener. I also acknowledge the contribution of the Rotary Club of Mittagong and Bowral, which paid for the cards to be printed. The Wingecarribee Health Service is also a willing participant in this most commendable program.Suicide is a waste, but it can be prevented. We need to be aware that each and every one of us is a tool that can help. All we need do is stop and genuinely listen. It takes only a moment to stop and listen, but it can be the difference between life and death. I commend the Yellow Ribbon campaign to the House.952622:39:009526Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Tonight I wish to comment on a petition by over 800 residents of my own electorate and the adjacent electorate of Parramatta with regard to bulk-billing. The only apology I would make is that the petition was signed before the situation had deteriorated further. It is a constantly worsening situation—even since those people expressed their concerns. As other speakers have indicated, we have seen a deterioration from 80.6 per cent when the Howard government was elected to a situation today where only 71 per cent of visits are bulk-billed. Admittedly, in the short term in my electorate the trend has not significantly changed, nor has it changed significantly in the adjacent Western Sydney electorates. I was at a meeting the other day when this petition was being discussed, and a person in the audience volunteered that their family doctor of 25 years in Eastwood had decided to bail out. In some ways, this is a repetition of a previous historical pattern. In 1975, Prime Minister Fraser indicated that he was committed to this style of system and then undermined it. In the 1980s, the current Prime Minister said he was going to take the knife to Medicare and then of course at the 1996 elections, in a clearly pragmatic tactic, decided that he had had some conversion, that Medicare was a good thing and that he was not going to undermine it. But the reality is that, through its processes, this government seeks to undermine Medicare, and the question of bulk-billing is of course central. Yesterday there was debate on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget Measures) Bill 2002, which would require higher prices for very necessary medicines. It follows a variety of measures by this government.We all know that, in this country and internationally, there is a correlation to some degree between the socioeconomic situation of people and their health, and these issues are crucial. The reality is that people are denying themselves visits to the doctor because they cannot afford to go. We have seen the erosion of the Medicare presence within my electorate. During the period of this government, we have seen the closure of the Medicare offices in Auburn and Merrylands and the related difficulties that have arisen from those closures. An article in the Medical Journal of Australia of May 2000—which is still apposite today—says:With few exceptions, the evidence shows unequivocally that people of `low' SES—socioeconomic status—however defined, have higher mortality rates for most major causes of death, experience more ill health (both psychological and psychosocial), and are less likely to take action to prevent disease or detect it at an asymptomatic stage.The article goes on to say:Children from low SES families are more likely to die as a result of injury ... and poisoning, and young adults ... of low SES experience higher all-cause mortality ...There are a lot of statistics which indicate this correlation between socioeconomic status and ill-health and mortality. So, as this government drags on trying to undermine and defeat Medicare and trying to make sure that we do not have an adequate public health system in this country, in an electorate like mine, which is characterised by a high population of new arrivals and a very depressed economic circumstance—even when compared to other electorates of Western Sydney—this is a crucial situation. Recently we have even seen the IMF questioning the practices of this government, which have seen health spending go to nine per cent of GDP, mainly pushed by the 30 per cent rebate. The IMF, not a Marxist or Leninist organisation of note, commented that a very heavy burden on public finances was being produced by this government's policies.The situation has not been adequately addressed by this government. The minister responsible has been silent about gap costs and silent about the drift to public hospitals as people try to find alternatives to the cost of going to local doctors. She has bemoaned the lack of GPs, ignoring the fact that her own government, when it first came to power, restricted people entering practice. I join with those 800 residents of my electorate in expressing concern about the deterioration of bulk-billing, which is just symptomatic of an overall attack by this government on public health and its total dependence on private health insurance—which, quite frankly, will have a major impact in the long term in electorates such as mine in Western Sydney.952722:44:009527Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—Tonight I have an unusual thing to do, and I do it with a sense of privilege. I am presenting a statement on behalf of Dr Peter Munn, Ms Marie Kennedy and Mr Digby Wilson, who are members of Whyalla Rural Australians for Refugees. I endeavour to represent all the people in my electorate, regardless of whether or not they vote for me—and this is such a case. The statement reads as follows: Whyalla Rural Australians for Refugees is part of a national organization that has been formed to help other Australians view refugees and asylum seekers as human beings with their own wants and needs. Since May 2002, three Rural Australians for Refugees groups have come into existence in the Grey electorate alone, to join with over twenty-five Rural Australians for Refugees groups around Australia.They acknowledge and appreciate that I, am prepared to present this statement to the House on their behalf. They continue:Rural Australians for Refugees exists as the voice of many concerned Australian citizens who feel that their legitimate concerns are not being heard and considered by policy makers. Their concerns centre on the detention of asylum seekers who assumed, under United Nations Conventions, that Australia would treat them with dignity and humanity and assess their claims for asylum under due process.I intercede here to quietly remind my constituents that at least 95 per cent of these people are already in Australia and have been granted temporary protection visas. The statement continues:Clearly, this has not occurred with some refugees still held in detention for periods of time exceeding two years. The terrifying impact on the mental health of these people, especially children, has been well documented and has been written about even by popular and conservative magazines such as `Women's Weekly'.They share with all Australians a real concern for Australia's well-being, but in addition, are dismayed at the present policy concerning refugee intake and the seemingly unfeeling and bureaucratic processing of the detained applicants. They are concerned about the apparent inability of Australians who disagree with the current policies to have their views given due weight and that their expressed concerns are seen as political opposition, or worse, as disloyalty to Australia. There is a huge need to humanize the way in which these traumatized people are received into Australia, if for no other reason than that many may well become residents following processing.I find it hard to imagine that, in peaceful Australia, these people who come to us would be more traumatised here than the alternative—the overseas countries they came from. But that is just my personal view.They believe that mandatory detention is an abhorrent policy that dehumanizes people. It fails to show any respect for the worth of each person, whether an adult or child. They believe that people should only be held in detention to establish their identity and for clearance from any criminal behaviour. The model adopted in Sweden, where children are only held in detention for a maximum of six days is one that has the support of my consituents. They continue:Whilst children and adults are held in detention at Woomera and now at Baxter, both of which are in the Electorate of Grey, their detention should be for the shortest time possible. Further, all attempts must be made to ensure that conditions inside these centres respect the rights of the detainees to: -· appropriate health care· appropriate formal education for all children under 18 years of age· an appropriate place of worship· free play areas for all children· all families being able to gain privacy, and· all detainees being able to receive visitors with a genuine concern for their welfare.No stone should be left unturned to ensure that the physical, mental and spiritual well being of each person is protected whilst they are placed at the detention centres.They believe that shaping public policy should not be based solely on the perceived dominant view of the day. History has shown that populist views can change—as witnessed by Vietnam and the lifelong emotional scars borne by the service men and women who bravely risked their lives for us and who, upon their return to Australia were roundly denigrated.Whyalla Rural Australians for Refugees would welcome the opportunity to have a number of refugee or asylum seeker families join their community—to socialize with them, to share their common humanity and their different experiences and knowledge and to ensure that they minimize the emotional scars for at least a few of their traumatized brothers and sisters. It has happened in other countries in the world most successfully and it is time that Australia adopts a community re-settlement process. Just today the minister spoke on this very issue. In summing up, I simply put the minister's position—and mine—to my constituents: the government believes that this policy has actually saved lives by challenging the tragic trade in human beings by people smugglers.952922:49:009529Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—In the limited time available at this late hour, I want to talk about one opportunity apparently lost and my fear about the possible loss of another. I refer to the Greater Sunrise and Bayu-Undan gas projects, two resource projects in the Timor Sea which, if brought to fruition, are worth almost $10 billion between them. Both are critical to the economy of the Northern Territory and, indeed, critical to the broader Australian economy. Delivering natural gas onshore from both fields is a matter critical to the national interest, yet the Howard government sits on its hands while Rome burns.The venture partners in the Greater Sunrise gas project are poised to announce that they are abandoning the option of bringing gas from that field onshore for the domestic market. Meanwhile, the 31 December deadline for the Bayu-Undan project is approaching fast and, despite reports that Ministers Macfarlane and Downer have responded to Labor's call to urgently visit Dili, the ratification of the Timor Sea Treaty appears no closer. Bayu-Undan venture partner Phillips Petroleum has expressed fear that delays in the finalisation of the treaty could result in the loss of its LNG contract with its Japanese customers. Further, East Timor's Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri has accused the Howard government of putting obstacles in the way of the ratification of the treaty.One of the great success stories to come out of the history of Australia's resources sector is the North West Shelf venture. After $13 billion of capital expenditure, it is responsible for 80,000 Australian jobs both directly and indirectly, annual export sales of $3 billion—that is a pre China contract figure—and annual royalty payments to government of around $303 million. Of course, with the construction of a fourth train on the Burrup and the recently secured contract with China, those numbers are all set to rise. I have expressed some concern about the China contract, but there is no time to develop that argument tonight. The point I do want to make tonight is that the North West Shelf project would not have come to fruition without creative government thinking and support.The Western Australian government lead by Charles Court guaranteed a domestic gas market. Paul Keating, as the Commonwealth Treasurer, provided special taxation arrangements to ensure the project's commercial viability. The Sunrise field is the only field in the Timor Sea with sufficient reserves to fuel the industrialisation of the Northern Territory and to provide an additional source of competitive gas to the south-east market. Of course, the Northern Territory government does not have the resources to do what Charles Court did, but it has been very active in pursuing the Domgas option at every opportunity. In fact, Chief Minister Clare Martin has personally and aggressively pursued the cause.The Howard government stands condemned for its inaction on the Sunrise gas issue. If the government is not prepared to become sufficiently active at the eleventh hour to ensure Sunrise gas comes onshore, it should move to guarantee the retention of the resource until such time that the market for domestic gas is sufficiently large to accommodate the domestic gas option. It has that power.The oil majors should not escape a mention. It is time we looked at market concentration in the upstream oil and gas markets to ensure that, in all cases, the national interest receives absolute priority. With respect to the Bayu-Undan field, which Phillips wants to bring onshore to an LNG plant at Wickham Point, the clock is ticking—time is running out. The deadline for the ratification of the Timor Sea Treaty is 31 December. Legislation required to give effect to the ratification requires the support of both the House and the Senate. Yet, no such legislation has been introduced or foreshadowed—I have checked those facts with the whip tonight. There are only six sitting days to go before the summer recess and things are looking decidedly grim for the Bayu-Undan project. I call upon the government to act and to act fast. The national interest demands it. 953022:54:009530Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I rise tonight to inform the parliament of the magnificent heart and generosity of one of the towns in my electorate of Eden-Monaro—Narooma. I am proud to say this town on the far South Coast of New South Wales has taken a leading approach to help out our drought stricken farmers, in particular, those in the Boggabri district of western New South Wales.In the past two weeks, the people of Narooma have donated more than $50,000 in cash, plus donations of goods, for families doing it tough this Christmas. Members of the Narooma community have worked very hard putting together hampers that were then delivered to the Boggabri district. As the Narooma News has reported, the fundraising is part of the `Adopt a town' program, which is the brainchild of local businessmen Bob Rushton and Chris Scroggy. The money will be used to provide vouchers to families in need to use at local businesses. This is a great idea because it not only puts food on the table but also helps to keep the shops in business and their staff employed. The Narooma News said:The hardship that the people of Boggabri have had to endure did not start with the drought but will stay with them long after the drought has broken. The floods in 2000 wiped out their lucerne crops and drought unlike flood or bushfire requires a much greater recovery time. When the lands have been burnt or flooded the recovery process can begin immediately. This is not the case when drought strikes the land. If the drought did break in the next few weeks, it would still be this time next year before any cash producing crops could be harvested and the situation is even more critical within the beef producing industry. Once the drought breaks and feed becomes readily available to livestock it is highly unlikely that breeding beef cows will produce saleable calves for the markets in less than two years. Bill Crawter, who's a councillor for Anglicare told the Narooma News, `there are people that don't have drinking water and families that are forced to live on one meal a day'.I also point out to the parliament that, like most of Australia, many parts of Eden-Monaro are also very dry. I have been contacted by a number of dairy farmers in the Bega Valley who can no longer afford to feed their herds. On the Monaro, many producers have been forced to sell off large numbers of cattle. In fact, I am advised that the Cooma based abattoir, Monbeef, plans to employ an extra 15 workers and start an extra shift in the near future to deal with the extra influx. I am sure decent rain is the No. 1 item on everyone's Christmas list this year. While parts of the Monaro are part of that one per cent of New South Wales that is not drought declared, they too are drying very quickly. It is an unusual situation in that the Monaro is usually one of the first to experience dry conditions. I guess they deserve a bit of a reprieve this time after the seven years of drought they had in the mid to late nineties, which was unbelievably devastating. So, while certain parts of the Monaro have managed to come through okay, they are drying very quickly and I don't think that that good fortune will last too much longer.In the meantime, the federal government is providing extensive practical support for farmers affected by drought. This includes exceptional circumstances support, in which the states lodge applications. Since 1997, the Commonwealth government has provided over $218 million in exceptional circumstances support for drought-affected farmers. In the current drought, the Commonwealth could pay this amount again in 2002-03 alone. There is also tax relief—meeting tax obligations can often be tough in such circumstances, and there are some ways to help there. At the end of last week the Prime Minister announced additional assistance measures: earlier access to farm management deposits; up to $2 million for personal counselling in 2002-03; the provision of $10 million by the Australian Government Envirofund drought funding round; $1 million in 2002-03 for the pest animal management grant program; and $1 million in 2002-03 for the Country Women's Association Emergency Aid Fund, which will also be of great assistance. I applaud Bob Rushton, Chris Scroggy and all those who have helped them demonstrate Narooma's great generosity. Almost everybody has made some sort of contribution towards the appeal, big or small. The generosity of those in Narooma just proves the spirit Australians possess when our fellow countrymen are in need. (Time expired)Question agreed to.House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices9531The following notices were given:00AMRKing, Catherine, MPMs King to move:That this House:(1) recognises that the battle at the Eureka Stockade represents a turning point in Australia's development as a nation, especially in the right of people to have a say in how we are governed;(2) notes that it is 148 years since this important battle took place;(3) recognises that the Eureka Flag remains an important symbol of the development of democratic government in Australia; and(4) calls on the Government to take steps to have the Eureka Flag proclaimed as an official flag of Australia under the provisions of the Flags Act 1953.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend various acts relating to law and justice, and for related purposes.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and for related purposes.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony to present a bill for an act to amend the social security law and the family assistance law, to amend certain other acts, and to repeal the First Home Owners Act 1983, and for related purposes.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey to move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for works in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 2 December 2002, namely: Construction of ministerial entry security barriers at Parliament House.Answers to Questions in Writing9532The following answers to questions were circulated:9532(Question No. 802 amended answer)8029532Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 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 2002.9532Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In substitution for the answer which appeared in Hansard page 7535 of 14 October 2002: (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) and (2) (ii) As at 30 June 2002 DFAT, inclusive of Austrade, employed the following numbers of staff: Full TimePermanentContractCanberra and State officesOverseasCanberra and State officesOverseasDFAT12375169816AusAID45263230ACIAR381663EFIC640770Austrade31024370330Part TimePermanentContractCanberra and State officesOverseasCanberra and State officesOverseasDFAT730190AusAID39050ACIAR6130EFIC5020Austrade20739As at the same date, DFAT also employed 1472 locally-engaged employees at overseas posts, and Austrade employed 18 locally-engaged employees on behalf of other agencies.9533(Question No. 998)9989533Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 October 2002:(1) Did he receive a request from the Lithuanian Government in October 2001 asking for assistance to locate 22 alleged Lithuanian war criminals believed to be living in Australia.(2) Did the Lithuanian authorities give any indication of the crimes the 22 suspects were alleged to have committed and did they involve the killing mainly of Jews.(3) How many of the 22 alleged war criminals did the Australian Federal Police (AFP), at the request of his Department, find in Australia and were the Lithuanian authorities informed.(4) What action, if any, have the AFP taken against the suspects.(5) Have the Lithuanian authorities indicated what charges they intend to lay against the suspects and have they requested the extradition of the suspects.(6) Will his Department take any further action against the suspects.9533Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) On 30 September 2001, the Attorney-General's Department received a letter from the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania asking for Australia's assistance in determining whether 22 named persons ever entered Australia and if so, whether they are alive or dead. If they are alive, the Lithuanian authorities asked for their current address. If they are dead the date, fact and official confirmation of death was sought.(2) The letter from the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania states that the persons on the list are suspected of genocide and war crimes against civilians, including persons of Jewish nationality during World War II. Precise details of the alleged offences were not provided.(3) The AFP has located addresses in Australia for nine persons on the list. The Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania has been informed.(4) The AFP has not taken action against any person named in the list. At the request of the Attorney-General's Department, the AFP has conducted enquiries to ascertain the whereabouts of the person on the list. Those enquiries are continuing.(5) The Lithuanian authorities have indicated that there is insufficient evidence to lay charges against any persons on the list, but they are continuing to examine information provided to them. They have not requested the extradition of suspects. (6) The Attorney-General's Department and the AFP will respond to any further requests that the Lithuanian authorities make. 9533(Question No. 1029)10299533Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 21 October 2002:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 653 (Hansard, 23 September 2002, page 6803), why was the decision taken that one Afghan asylum seeker be processed by his Department.(2) Has processing on this case been completed; if so, what was the outcome.(3) If the asylum seeker has been given refugee status, has a resettlement country been identified.(4) If the asylum seeker has been rejected, has the person indicated a preparedness to accept the Government's monetary offer to return to Afghanistan.(5) If the asylum seeker has been rejected and has not accepted the Government's monetary offer to return to Afghanistan, when will the asylum seeker be forcibly returned and where will the asylum seeker be held pending forcible return.9533Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) One Afghan asylum seeker from the MV Tampa had his Refugee Status Assessment (RSA) processed by my Department. This RSA consideration was transferred from UNHCR to the Department as a result of his physical relocation between facilities on Nauru due to health considerations. The asylum seeker's medical condition was assessed after his arrival on Nauru and it was determined that the medical facilities and accommodation available at the facility known as State House would best cater to his needs. At that time, all persons residing at State House were having their RSA processed by my Department and this case was accordingly transferred. (2) The RSA has been finalised and the person has been found to be a refugee.(3) The person has close family links in another country and work is underway, in cooperation with the UNHCR, to progress his possible resettlement to that country. (4) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.9534(Question No. 1044)10449534Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 22 October 2002:(1) With respect to the Ministers Department and each agency for which the Minister is responsible, what is the total number of (a) male and (b) female staff.(2) In the Ministers Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and how many of each gender have elected to pay additional superannuation contributions.(3) In the Ministers Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff are members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme and how many of each gender have elected to pay (i) additional and (ii) reduced superannuation contributions.(4) In the Ministers Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff have any other form of superannuation.9534Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The answer to this question is the same as that given to Question No. 1047 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.9534(Question No. 1089)10899534McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 12 November 2002:Has the Minister's Department implemented any policies or practices to assist employees to balance work and family responsibilities; if so what are those policies and or practices.9534Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The answer to this question is the same as that given to Question No. 1092 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.