2002-12-094013REPS984502002-12-09—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees9845984512:30:009845Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I wish to make a statement entitled Annual review of Australia's relations with the United Nations. The review has its origins in a report presented by the committee in the last parliament entitled Australia's Role in United Nations Reform. In that report the former committee concluded that the ideals of the United Nations, as expressed in the United Nations charter, are as important today as they were when they were first written. The report did acknowledge, however, that the United Nations was in clear need of reform if it is to contribute effectively to peace, security and improved human rights. Many of the former committee's recommendations focused on the need for greater and more stable funding of the United Nations and called on the Australian government to actively support reforms directed at promoting efficiency, transparency and accountability in the UN's administration and financial management, and encouraging more representative structures in various UN institutions, including the Security Council. The former committee also expressed the view that more active involvement by parliament in discussing and debating Australia's activities at the United Nations might help improve community awareness and understanding of the role of the United Nations. To help promote greater parliamentary debate, the report proposed that an annual program of public hearings be conducted on the subject of Australia's participation in United Nations activities.I can report to the House that, earlier this year, the committee resolved to convene an annual program of review hearings, as recommended by the former committee. The first of these annual hearings was held on 2 July this year and involved an examination of officials from the government agencies most closely involved in facilitating Australia's activities at the United Nations—namely, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Defence, the Australian Agency for International Development, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.The hearing focused on a series of issues identified by the former committee as warranting continuing attention: the status of Australia's treaty obligations; Australia's involvement in UN peacekeeping operations; Australia's involvement in UN programs, funds and specialised agencies; the work of Australia's permanent missions to the UN; the progress of structural and financial reform in the UN; and the overall costs and benefits of Australia's participation in the UN. We also invited those organisations and individuals who had contributed to the former committee's inquiry to provide additional or updated information. A number of witnesses chose to do so and we received 20 written submissions. I would like to present to the House the transcript of evidence taken at the review hearing in July, and copies of the written submissions received. Copies of all these documents are also available on the committee's Internet site.We found the hearing to be a valuable opportunity to be briefed on, and to discuss the nature of, Australia's current activities at the United Nations. We were pleased to note, for example, that Australia's initiative to promote reforms in the way that UN treaty review bodies conduct their work is making good progress—despite initial reservations being expressed in some quarters—that reforms to the management of UN peacekeeping operations are being implemented; that Australia is developing strategic partnerships with UN agencies, including the UN Development Program and the UN High Commission for Refugees, to increase the engagement and effectiveness of these agencies in the Asia-Pacific region; and that the leading role taken by successive Australian governments in developing the statute for the International Criminal Court has come to fruition, with Australia's ratification of the statute and the creation of the court on 1 July 2002. There is also some evidence that the Secretary-General's second term reform agenda, which includes a focus on improving internal financial and administrative processes, is being implemented effectively, although much remains to be done. It seems, however, that little progress has been made, or is expected, on the bigger issues of institutional reform. Proposals to expand the membership of the Security Council, both the permanent and non-permanent membership, and to remove the veto power held by the existing five permanent members, which Australia and others have advocated for many years, are deadlocked. The reality seems to be that in the absence of dramatic shifts of geo-political opinion, particularly on the part of the existing five permanent members, the prospects for Security Council reform are slim, at best.While there is growing agreement that the UN's informal system of voting blocks, or electoral groups, is out of date and does not accurately reflect current membership, there is little agreement on alternative models. Until there is widespread acceptance that a credible alternative would work more effectively than the current blocks, there seems little prospect of change. Despite these, and other limitations, we have seen in the last 12 months that the United Nations can play a central role in giving voice to, and helping bring together, world opinion. It has been an influential forum for the coordination of responses to the threat of terrorism and debate about crises such as Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction.We remain firmly of the view that it is in Australia's interests to be fully committed to the United Nations. This is not to say we should be uncritical in our engagement with the United Nations. As a large organisation driven by international political will and with a complex agenda, the United Nations does have many failings; for example, sometimes the agenda of its conferences are hijacked by special interest groups, sometimes its programs or initiatives are poorly focused or managed and sometimes individuals working on UN-sponsored activities act in an unethical or illegal manner. In our view, the appropriate response is not to withdraw but to build coalitions with other member nations and the organisation itself to challenge resistance to reform and to ensure that, when mistakes are made, remedial action is taken. As noted by the committee previously:... remaining fully committed to the United Nations is the only choice . . . ... ... ...... the United Nations has the potential to provide a more ordered and just international community, in which smaller powers have some influence ... It increases our influence in the world and serves to promote our national interests.As I have already remarked, this annual review has been a valuable opportunity to continue the process of parliamentary consideration of Australia's relations with the United Nations. Given the dramatic changes in world affairs over the last 12 months, particularly the new and unpredictable threat posed by terrorism, I have little doubt that the committee will continue to review Australia's relations with the United Nations on an annual basis. I present a copy of the statement together with evidence received by the committee.Business98469846FRAN BAILEY (McEwen—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (12.39 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That notice No. 2, committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour this day and when called on, be allotted 10 minutes consideration.Question agreed to.Delegation Reports9846984612:40:009846Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia and the 23rd ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) General Assembly held in Vietnam from 1 to 13 September 2002. The delegation visited Indonesia between 1 and 6 September. The broad objective of the visit was to promote and foster relations between Australia and Indonesia and to examine the challenges that confront Indonesia over the short to medium term. These parliament to parliament exchanges with Indonesia are becoming more important. The delegation met with a range of Indonesian government and private sector representatives and individuals to discuss political and security issues, poverty reduction, economic and trade reform, and electoral and constitutional reform. As part of the visit, the delegation met with Islamic leaders and visited Muslim educational institutions. The purpose was to gain a clearer understanding of the role and influence of Islam in contemporary Indonesia. In relation to this role in the political system, representatives of the Muhammadiyah University commented that `Islam is not Indonesia'; instead, Indonesians should focus on justice and the virtues of education. The delegation supports the maintenance of a secular state in Indonesia; that is, the separation of church and state.It is estimated that there are 40 million people in Indonesia living in abject poverty. The United Nations World Food Program will help 2.1 million Indonesians who face the highest risk of hunger and malnutrition. As part of our visit, the delegation visited an AusAID sponsored World Food Program project in North Jakarta providing food aid to the urban poor. The level of poverty and deprivation suffered by these people is profound. It is estimated that the poor survive on no more than $4 a day. They go without adequate food, water and shelter and the provision of essential infrastructure such as running water and sewerage. The site that we visited consisted of about 2,000 people living in small, joined corrugated iron dwellings tracking along a riverbank. These people were said to be occupying the area illegally. The World Food Program project explained that these people had no access to government social support because they were `illegal settlers in a shadow existence on the fringes of the economy'.The visit formed an essential part of the delegation's itinerary by clearly demonstrating the significant challenges confronting Indonesia. If possible, all Australian delegations to Indonesia should visit WFP in order to better understand the extent of the problem and the valuable role played by poverty reduction programs. We should also support our aid budget—visit the projects overseas, learn about and support increased resourcing of Australian aid. We should also appreciate the primary cause of poverty: the insidious network of public corruption—people living in shantytowns for 20 years without legal rights, without access to sanitation, power, fresh water and other basics. This confirms the findings of Hernando de Soto's wonderful book, The Mystery of Capital. It is the rule of law and access to property rights that can provide solutions to poverty. Locking countries away from free trade and economic exchanges is no answer. It is the corruption of government, the corruption of public officials, that is the true enemy of the poor. Recently the World Bank reported that the three most successful nations in the world at poverty alleviation were Cuba, China and Vietnam. This demonstrates the benefit of a strong state and demonstrates the benefits of the rule of law.Indeed, this issue—the rule of law—is a huge question in Indonesia. It also says something important about Australia's policy of engagement in Asia. Asia is a diverse and dynamic region—no two nations are alike. As a result, Australia should not have one policy of Asian engagement but many policies: a strategy for each of the different nations and cultures of the region. We need a sophisticated approach to the region in which we live. As part of this strategy, it is clear that government to government relations work best when Australia is engaging with strong nation states. The rule of law and institutional stability are paramount. This form of engagement works best with strong nations such as Singapore, China and Vietnam.From the evidence presented to the delegation, Indonesia is not a strong state. Indeed, the Minister for Economic Planning, Kwik Kian Gie, told us that `Indonesia is sick'. After the strong hand of Soeharto was lifted, 30 years of institutional weakness has been revealed. I refer the House to various newspaper articles and comments by former President Wahid about this problem. Wahid's view was confirmed during the delegation's discussions with law reform advocates in Jakarta. In their view, ethical standards in the Indonesian judiciary start with the ethical teaching of law at university. If Australia is to engage successfully with Indonesia, as it must, it should be through a series of grassroots programs of institution building. Government to government exchanges are important but the recent record shows that strong personal relationships between ministers are more likely to be the exception than the rule. Quite frankly, both sides come to the table with a superiority complex: Australian ministers with their notions of Western cultural and economic superiority; and Indonesian ministers looking at Australia as a funny little colonial outpost at the bottom of the world, now under the thumb of the United States.Post Bali, our relationship with Indonesia has never been more important, but so too it has never been more challenging and complex. Our political and governmental exchanges must be complemented by grassroots programs of institution building—Australian academics working with Indonesian academics to ensure ethical teaching and values, especially in the law and corporate sector; our financial institutions working with the Indonesians to restore the rule of law; and our law enforcement authorities doing much the same.I commend this report to the House. I express the delegation's appreciation to staff of the Australian embassies in Indonesia and Vietnam. They were all outstanding in their assistance to our delegation. Finally, I thank the other members of the delegation: our leader, the member for Page; Mrs Causley; the member for Herbert; Mrs Lindsay; the member for Lingiari; Senator Eggleston; and our outstanding delegation secretary, Stephen Boyd, without whom we would not have functioned as an effective delegation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I thank the member for Werriwa for his accommodation.12:47:009848Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I also thank the member for Werriwa for his comments on the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia and the 23rd ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation General Assembly. I would like to make a number of short comments. I appreciate the opportunity that the parliament gave me to be a member of this delegation. It certainly adds to the depth of knowledge I have of our Asian neighbours that we visited. A number of things came out of this visit. First of all, our leader, the member for Page, Ian Causley, and the secretariat did a magnificent job in looking after the delegation. It is a pity the member for Page is not able to be with us today. I know he will be with us in spirit.What came out of the visit to Indonesia, for me specifically, was the fact that Australia is held in very high regard. Despite what is said about this country, people do appreciate the links they have with Australia. Many have been educated in, and have close ties with, Australia. Behind the scenes, there is warmth and affection which is not seen publicly, and that is a pity.I was very impressed with the leaders of the Muslim groups. We met with clerics who between them represented about 90 million Muslims. They assured members of the delegation that the Muslim people in Indonesia are, by and large, a moderate, friendly people who follow the ethics of most of the major religions of the world, which are very similar in their outlook. They distance themselves 110 per cent from the fanatical elements of Islam that exist in small pockets of Indonesia. They wanted us to know that the majority of Muslims in Indonesia absolutely reject the extremism that we have seen not only in the last few weeks but also in the last few years.The state of Indonesia's environment shocked me in relation to the state of the law. Many Indonesian leaders understand that they must do something about that. Australia is also held in very high regard in Vietnam. It was particularly pleasing to see the AusAID programs—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The time allotted for this section of the debate has expired. If the member for Herbert has a concluding sentence, I will allow him to state it.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I appreciate the opportunity to have been on the delegation. I ask people to read the report which will give them a clearer view of the delegation's visit. 984912:50:009849Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the 171st Session of the Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Geneva, Switzerland, between 23 and 27 September 2002. Honourable members will be aware that usually the Inter-Parliamentary Union holds two conferences a year at which delegations from about 140 countries debate a range of topical issues and adopt resolutions on them.Over the last couple of years the IPU has been debating reform of its own practices and procedures. As part of this process, a second conference was not held in 2002 but rather a council meeting of the IPU, the 171st, was convened in Geneva to advance this reform process. Senator Grant Chapman and I, as the permanent delegates to the IPU council, attended these meetings from 23 to 27 September.The report I have just tabled documents in detail the debates and decisions taken in Geneva. In the few minutes available to me, I would like to review a number of these. Most importantly, the House should note that Senator Sergio Paez of Chile was elected as the new President of the Council of the IPU. The vote was very close; as I recall, 106 to 99. I suspect he will be very grateful to Australia. It could have been a bit closer, if we had gone the other way. Nevertheless, the Australian delegation is confident that Senator Paez will bring wisdom and energy to the work of the IPU. We congratulate him and look forward to working closely with him.At these meetings, the IPU council debated a reform package that aims at building an organisation that is more relevant in the modern world and that would be better placed to provide a parliamentary dimension to international cooperation. The Australian delegation welcomes this reform process but, as in the past, maintains that these reforms must be comprehensive and meaningful, and we will be presenting strong arguments to this effect when the IPU concludes this process at its next meeting in Santiago in April 2003.During these meetings, the council considered whether five member countries, including the United States of America, should be suspended under the articles of the IPU statutes because they are three years in arrears in the payment of contributions to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I argued strongly in the council that it should defer consideration of the cases until its next session in Santiago de Chile in April 2003 and that in the meantime every effort should be made to bring the United States and the other countries back into the IPU. I am pleased to say that the council adopted what I thought was a very sensible approach.The budget of the IPU has been a matter in which Australian delegations have taken an active and constructive interest. In Geneva, the IPU council noted that the draft budget proposal called for a 10 per cent increase in member fees, a situation that Australian delegations in the past argued could be alleviated by more comprehensive cost cutting. It was particularly pleasing when the council was told that the executive committee had reviewed the spending estimates carefully and that, as a result, assessed contributions would be increased by seven per cent. The Australian delegation noted the clarity and transparency of the new budget presentation, and it was again pleasing when, informally and also in the plenary session, the contribution of the Australian delegation to the reform process, particularly in relation to financial reporting and budget discipline, was acknowledged. The report I have tabled includes the IPU budget, member contributions and details of other meetings and decisions made at the council meeting. Before I commend the report to the House, I must say that, as usual, the delegation was very well served by Mr Neil Bessell, from the Senate side, in his job as secretary. Nothing is too much trouble for Neil Bessell. Apart from being a lovely fellow to be with, he is also very efficient. One of the delights from going to these IPU meetings is that you get to see a lot of your friends who go over there. I am very pleased to say—not that I saw much of him—that the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Mr Ian Harris, was over there as well. He of course is very busy, and I am hopeful that he will end up with the biggest job of the lot at that IPU in terms of the clerks. I wish him all the very best, and I must say I always enjoy his company. Mr Speaker, at the next meeting in Chile, perhaps you will be there as well. I am sure that we can make a good contribution to the IPU, which I think we inevitably do. I commend the report to the House. 985012:55:009850Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I present the report of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch Delegation to the 48th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held in Namibia, September 2002. The report summarises the deliberations at the 2002 conference and includes summary reports from the conference workshops. The theme for this year's conference was the parliamentary dimension to human security. Coming exactly one year after the tragic events of 11 September 2001, the conference discussions recognised and reflected the very different environment facing the international community since 11 September.At the various conference sessions, parliamentarians from across the Commonwealth of nations were able to share ideas and opinions about the many challenges which this new environment presents for us. Those challenges require that we maintain an active dialogue on issues of human security both within our own parliaments and with our international colleagues in other parliaments. Terrorism was a focus of discussions at a number of the conference sessions. As many speakers indicated, parliaments have an important role to play in combating terrorism—it is not just a task reserved for governments. A number of delegates saw the need for parliaments to take a more proactive role in the combating of terrorism. In particular, it was suggested that parliaments should strengthen their oversight of policies and measures aimed at guaranteeing the security of citizens.At the same time, participants in the conference recognised that decision makers need to look beyond the immediate threat of terrorism and need to address the root causes of violence, including poverty, injustice and inequality. The impact of globalisation on developing and poor countries was raised by a number of delegates to the conference. It was argued strongly that the benefits of globalisation need to be more broadly realised so that poorer countries are not left further behind. Some suggested greater parliamentary scrutiny of international organisations and their policies and programs, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Others highlighted the need for parliaments to actively scrutinise executive government actions, particularly in addressing poverty related issues, to ensure that suitable and sufficient action is taken to alleviate poverty.Cyberterrorism was also discussed at the conference, with delegates agreeing that there needs to be greater international cooperation in addressing this 21st century threat. Delegates also saw the need to address more rigorously the growing divide between those who have access to technology and those who do not. It was argued that, without effective action to deal with the digital divide by both governments and the private sector the gap between groups in society will become too difficult and too costly to address.The need to uphold democratic principles in these uncertain times was another important theme running through the conference. Concern was expressed about the drift away from democratic practices in some Commonwealth countries. The Australian delegation stressed that free and fair elections remained one of the cornerstones of democracy; free speech, an independent judiciary and freedom of association being the other cornerstones—all built on a foundation of tolerance. We pointed to the inspiring example of the independence referendum in East Timor and contrasted that with the presidential election held in Zimbabwe, as a demonstration of the need to promote the democratic principles that underpin our society. Conference delegates advocated a more active and vocal role for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in upholding democratic principles within its member states. It needs to influence solutions and not just be a forum for the exchange of ideas. The delegation experienced some difficulties with airline procedures and initial accommodation arrangements in Namibia, but these were resolved by Andres Lomp, the delegate secretary, who at all times provided excellent support to all members of the delegation. I take this opportunity to thank the delegation leader, Senator Calvert, and the other delegation members—the member for Swan, the member for La Trobe and Senator McGauran—for their companionship and active participation in the conference. I also thank the Parliamentary Relations Office and the Parliamentary Library for the assistance that was provided to the delegation. I commend the report to the House.Committees98519851985113:01:009851Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, I present the committee's report entitled Moving on intelligent transport systems, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Intelligent transport systems—or ITS—use computers to control traffic lights and road signs and to monitor road conditions in order to advise road users. This leads to more efficient and safer transport of goods and people. Intelligent transport systems are familiar to all of us in one form or another. Our major cities use ITS technology, and most of it is Australian made. In many areas of ITS, we lead the world. The committee was asked to review the potential for using variable speed signs as a case study for ITS. The committee found that variable speed signs improved transport safety and efficiency; however, the committee concluded that a case study limited to the usefulness of these signs was unnecessary.While examining this issue, the committee found that there was a larger, nationally more significant issue: the degree to which Australians have implemented ITS and grasped the opportunities that ITS offers. In Australia, each state is left to pursue ITS in its own way, resulting in differences between states. The result is that this nation is facing a 21st century version of the rail gauge problem. This House well knows that the rail gauge problem has bedevilled this nation since the 1870s, and at considerable expense. In the United States, the European Union and Japan, as well as other developed economies, ITS is coordinated at a national level. The committee believes that it is the legitimate role of the national government to take the lead in national issues. Transport is a national issue.To address these issues, the committee made 11 recommendations. Key recommendations include the establishment of a Commonwealth ITS bureau, which would be responsible directly to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; nationally set standards; targeted research and development funding; the creation of a national ITS corridor of roads where integrated ITS can be further enhanced; and Commonwealth facilitation for the export of Australian ITS technology. In a globalised economy, this nation cannot afford an uncoordinated approach to the development of ITS. The benefits of ITS are great; the cost of inaction horrendous. Let me advise the House that the specific benefits of ITS for Australia include $3.8 billion in savings from safety and $7.5 billion in savings from reduced congestion and lost time. At present, congestion costs Australia around $13 billion per annum, and this will rise to over $30 billion per annum over the next 15 years or so.One of the most important benefits of ITS will be a reduction in road accidents and fatalities—for example, in the period January to August 2002, 1,143 people died on Australian roads. The human cost of road accidents to the community is incalculable. The monetary cost is in the order of $15 billion per annum. An area where we have had some success in exporting Australian ITS technology to the world is the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Transport System—or SCATS, as it is known. This has been exported to over 80 cities around the world. However, we do not have a national approach to exporting Australian ITS technology. This is in contrast with other countries, who have seized the export opportunities offered by ITS and established national export programs to market their technology. The export opportunities are immense—for example, in 2000, the annual European market for ITS was $A800 million and the US market for ITS is estimated to grow to $35 billion by 2010. In our own region, the estimates for the requirements of ITS are that they will be in the order of $700 billion. Australia's opportunities for ITS will increase rapidly, but capturing a share of this opportunity will require coordinated government efforts. Intelligent transport systems are `green systems'. Traffic flows and vehicle management are improved by using ITS, which in turn reduces fuel consumption, lowers greenhouse emissions and reduces pressure on many roads. This report is a blueprint for Commonwealth leadership, so that all stakeholders can realise the opportunities offered by ITS. In commending the report to the House, I thank Ian Dundas and his staff for their commitment and Andrew Brien in particular for a very challenging role as inquiry secretary.13:06:009852Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I am happy to speak on this report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, Moving on intelligent transport systems. The purpose of this inquiry was to examine the potential to use the F3 Freeway north of Sydney and the Hume and Federal highways between Sydney and Canberra as case studies to examine the viability or otherwise of variable speed signs. I, for one, was particularly interested in this process as a frequent user of each of these road systems. Also, with the F3 between Sydney and the Central Coast being a major commuter highway for a large and growing section of Sydney's work force, improved safety systems on this highway are essential—indeed, I have personally experienced hours of delay on this road due to vehicle collisions.The committee was of the general view, however, that there was little point using the F3 and Hume and Federal highways as case studies for testing variable speed limits. Why? Because the committee felt that, as variable speed limit signs were already in use and working effectively on the M5 and M4 motorways—as well as the wider use, and to greater effect, overseas—further testing was unnecessary. In fact what started out as a relatively small premise for an inquiry, `Should we use these two road systems to test one thing—variable speed limit signs?' ended up going much further than that and returned what I believe to be a much fuller and more comprehensive set of recommendations regarding intelligent transport systems, of which variable speed limits is but one aspect. The committee reached the view that the government at the national level had not developed an appropriate policy regarding the development of ITS, nor had it put enough into research and development to fully utilise this new technology. In his report, the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, the honourable member for Hinkler, stated:The committee was disturbed ... by the apparent lack of coordination of ITS at the Commonwealth level and the lack of focused administration to coordinate national policy and a national system.Submissions to the inquiry clearly showed the many benefits of ITS including less fuel consumption leading to less air pollution, better road safety practices with benefits to both, less injury and fewer costs involved with vehicle collisions, and more efficient industries with many industries relying on road transport. Because of the lack of government action in developing ITS strategies, with its considerable benefits to the Australian economy, the committee recommended the creation of an ITS bureau directly responsible to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. This bureau would encourage the development of ITS both in Australia and as an export earner. The committee's report agreed to by all members was concerned about the government's approach to ITS and in particular the government's attitude to research and development. In item 4.121 through to 4.133, the report refers to overseas ITS development. It states: It would appear that we do not spend a great deal on ITS R&D compared to other nations . . . It would appear that Australia does not possess even basic coordination at a national level for R&D.The report makes a comparison of the amount spent on ITS in overseas countries. Japan has budgeted some $270 million for R&D and $2.1 billion for ITS in total. Similarly the United States spent $217 million for R&D in 2000 and over $2 billion for ITS between 1998 and 2003. Each year the European Union spends some 100 million euro on R&D in this area and that is not counting what individual member countries spend. By comparison the grand total of expenditure in Australia on ITS, including R&D, was only $80 million in 1998-99. You can see how the Australian effort falls far short of the overseas experience. The report suggests an increase of at least $30 million to $50 million in expenditure on ITS if Australia is to compete with overseas countries and cash in on exports in this cutting edge technology. It is sugested that a strong case exists to create a fifth ITS category of road funding and reallocate a proportion of Commonwealth funding to ITS development. The report suggests that Australia has not acted strongly in relation to a national approach to ITS. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Hinkler wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?13:11:009853Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills9853R16879853Bill presented by Mr Albanese.13:11:009853Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—The Governor-General Amendment Bill 2002 bill seeks to amend the Governor-General Act 1974 to require that the Governor-General's annual report be considered and commented on by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and then ultimately by all members of parliament. Currently the annual report is simply laid before each house of the parliament with members and senators prohibited from discussing or making comments on it. This bill is not revolutionary; it simply seeks to restore the accountability of the Governor-General to the Parliament of Australia. We should expect nothing less. A vibrant and effective democracy depends on the open and free exchange of views and opinions amongst the wider community as well as inside our parliaments. However, as a result of a historical hangover from a time before Australia had even formed a nation, any criticism or discussion of the Queen or her representative, the Governor-General, is banned from federal parliament. This restriction is imposed by standing order 74, which was adopted from a similar convention governing Britain's House of Commons.I have also sponsored a private member's motion, which, in conjunction with this bill, seeks to remedy this situation and ensure that this parliament is able to consider and discuss all issues of national importance, including the performance of the Governor-General. Across the community, in the media and around the kitchen table, Australians are discussing the performance of our Governor-General, but no such debate is permitted in the federal parliament amongst our democratically elected representatives. This is a shame. My motivation for tabling this bill is to ensure public accountability of whoever holds the office of Governor-General and the manner in which they conduct their public duties and responsibilities. Those who defend the current embargo on parliamentary discussion about the performance of our governors-general had their motivation for doing so blatantly exposed by the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ian Sinclair. Justifying his opposition to any change, Mr Sinclair told ABC Radio on 31 October: The monarch is seen as a person who is a little bit above the laws that apply to every other citizen.I believe most Australians would consider such a situation obscene and alien to Australia's egalitarian principles. Despite his intentions, Mr Sinclair's contribution simply underlines why the status quo is no longer tenable. No public office holder is above the law and no public office should be shielded from parliamentary scrutiny. It is that simple. The government's position with respect to my bill is nothing short of hypocrisy. While the government, through the Leader of the House, has indicated its support for the retention of the current situation, claiming that the office of Governor-General `should be above party politics', it has spent the last 6½ years undermining just about every public institution in this country for its own ideological purposes. It has not only politicised institutions that are meant to be independent of the executive arm of government but also systematically sought to manipulate and subject them to the electoral agenda of the Liberal and National parties. It has nobbled the federal Public Service through the removal of numerous departmental heads and replaced them with people the Prime Minister can trust.During the children overboard affair the government politicised and manipulated the defence department for its own political advantage. Twelve of the government's 14 appointments to the IRC have been from employer backgrounds. Also, it stacked the board of the ABC with Liberal Party apparatchiks and mates of the Prime Minister. We now have the rumour that Peter Reith will be the next to be appointed. But the most disturbing example the government's hypocrisy is the way in which it let one of its own, from the safety of parliamentary privilege, launch a vicious and personal attack on High Court Judge Michael Kirby. The subsequent apology could never repair the damage done. Of course, Tony Abbott's memorable campaign of hysteria against politicians during the republic referendum showed that some conservatives are even prepared to denigrate parliamentary democracy itself.The Australian people currently do not have the right to choose their head of state. At the very least, our democratically elected representatives should be able to comment on the vice-regal performance. I am a republican and proud of it. But whilst the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative, is our head of state, he or she must be a figure of national unity and inspire respect and affection, which Sir William Deane successfully achieved during his tenure. It is time to restore the public's faith in our public institutions. Let us start by making the highest office in the land accountable to this parliament. I commend the bill to the House and call upon the government to have a full debate and a vote on this private member's bill.Bill read a first time.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business9854985413:17:009854O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I move:That this House:(1) 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;(2) calls upon the Government to act immediately to review the current security arrangements in relation to foreign seafarers; and(3) further notes the threats posed to our coastal environment by flag of convenience vessels.These issues have been raised in the House before over quite a long period and it is distressing and quite frightening to have to do so again. This motion recognises that we have much to do in order to secure the sanctity of our borders and the pristine nature of our coasts.Under part 1 of schedule 9 of the migration regulations, crew of nonmilitary vessels must hold an identity document or passport for entry into Australia. They are defined as having a special purpose visa under section 33 of the Migration Act 1958. This determination is made if the vessel on which the seafarer travels either, firstly, enters Australia at a proclaimed port or a port other than a proclaimed port, if permission for it to do so has been given in advance by the Australian Customs Service under section 58 of the Customs Act 1901 or, secondly, will depart Australia for a place outside Australia during the voyage. Crew members signing off for repatriation from Australia can be permitted to stay up to 30 days with special purpose visas—in practice, they are actually given about five working days to leave. This permission is given only with a guarantee provided by the master, owner, agent or charterer. A seafarer can remain in Australia as long as they remain a member of the crew of a nonmilitary vessel during the vessel's voyage. Masters are required to report any crew desertion as soon as possible before the vessels leave Australia. Foreign crews who desert are subject to detention and removal. However, there is no specific resource allocation for compliance activities in respect of foreign seafarers.Between March 1996 and 30 April 1999, 263 ship deserters were reported by the Australian Customs Service. Of the 148 who were located, 53 applied to remain in Australia. This means that in an approximate two-year period we were aware of 115 foreign seafarers deserting from foreign ships whose whereabouts remained unknown. But the question remains: do we know about all of them; how many others jump ship that we do not have records of? The extent of this problem is exacerbated by the almost unfettered access to our coast granted to foreign ships. As Lachlan Payne from the ASA points out in today's Financial Review, some foreign ships are granted continuing voyage permits `even those operating exclusively between Australian ports for months on end'. If foreign vessels are given unlimited access to costal trade, the management of large numbers of foreign seafarers semipermanently operating on the Australian coast will continue to be a major issue. In the current climate of security tightening, this appears an absurd reality. We must have tighter controls on port security.The United States, the United Kingdom and many other shipping nations are clamping down on access to their coasts. They actively engage in policies that promote their own shipping industry. They have been active participants in international discussions on port security. In contrast, in Australia, if it were not for the actions of the IMO and now the ILO, Australia would not even be participating in discussions relating to port security.Australia has some 37,000 kilometres of coastline—some of the most beautiful and pristine in the world. We have been mercifully lucky that we have not seen a spill the size of that from the Exxon Valdez, but we have had significant environmental damage from ships on our coast. We cannot and we must not actively engage in any activity that puts the safety of our coastal environment at risk. That means making sure that whoever is plying their trade on our coasts meets certain standards. They must be well trained and their vessels must be well maintained, and ultimately we must know who they are.One of the significant problems in the industry, and particularly in second registers, is the inability to track ultimate ownership and, therefore, ultimate responsibility. On 18 November the Prestige, a 26-year-old single-hull tanker travelling under a Bahamian flag, sank off the northern Spanish coast, resulting in an oil slick that has been estimated to be twice the size of that of the Exxon Valdez. The implications for Spain are unthinkable. Lloyd's List of 30 November carries an article titled `Another fine mess' and says, in relation to the Prestige:The winding trail of responsibility will be hard to trace and a political storm is gathering force in Europe ... Prestige was a Bahamian-flagged vessel, owned by a Greek one-ship company, listed in Liberia and chartered by a Russian company based in Switzerland. It was manned by a multinational crew predominantly made up of Romanians and Filipinos, insured in London, graded as seaworthy by an American classification society and managed by a company based in Athens. The murky status of the vessel has done little to dispel the familiar accusation that the shipping industry exists in a shady legal hinterland, where a lack of enforcement and accountability persist. We are not immune from ships such as these. On 24 November the Tasman Sea was involved in a collision off China resulting in an oil slick. That ship was in Australian waters in May last year. On 26 November the Hual Europe, a two-year-old car carrier under a Bahamian flag, was burning out of control after running aground near Tokyo. It was last in Australian waters in September; just a few months ago, it visited Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. We cannot take the risk that the next maritime disaster will be off our own coast. We need to ensure that ships that ply their trade on the Australian coast are well maintained and crewed by the best possible staff. The international maritime community has its eyes firmly on the issues of security and environmental protection. Australia must do no less. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?00AMPGrierson, Sharon, MPMs Grierson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:23:009856Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—I am delighted to speak on the motion of the member for Bass relating to foreign crewed vessels. I am especially delighted because it gives me an opportunity to compliment very warmly the wonderful work that the Australian Customs Service is doing for our country. The member for Bass's motion speaks of the increased risk of illegal entry into Australia from foreign crewed vessels that are now able to spend extended periods on our coasts. I am delighted to speak on this because I want to pay tribute to the work and the philosophy of the Australian Customs Service. I respond to the member for Bass's motion by, first of all, saying that we do acknowledge that there is a risk of illegal entry into Australia from foreign crewed vessels, as there is a risk of entry into our country by air or by boat. But the whole point of the exercise is how to minimise this risk in a very practical way. What this government is doing is addressing that. The risk is there, but it also should be pointed out that it is being minimised substantially by this government: by the work, the checks and balances, of the Customs Service.To facilitate trade, coasting trade permits are issued to foreign ships only where there is no suitable Australian licensed ship available to carry the cargo when and where required by the shipper. So the priority is in fact to give work to local vessels, to Australian vessels. Coasting trade permits are issued to foreign ships only where circumstances do not otherwise allow Australian vessels to be involved. Most permits are for a single voyage only, which means that permits are issued for a single voyage between designated ports for the carriage of specified cargo or passengers. The continuing voyage permits that we have are issued only when there is no licensed ship available to carry cargo over that period. It is not a case of Australian licences being given to foreign vessels just on a whim. That implication that may have been left by the member for Bass should be countered very strongly. Licences are not given willy-nilly; they are given when local vessels do not have the opportunity to be involved in the transportation of cargo or passengers. Foreign crews are under the control of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The crew lists are checked by people from the Australian Customs Service, who check against Customs and Immigration alert lists. The shadow minister for regional and urban development, transport and infrastructure himself confirmed at a recent gathering that the opposition would continue to issue coasting trade permits if the opposition ever came into office. But it is important to note that the Australian government and its departments, particularly the Australian Customs Service, are in the business of ensuring, with all the resources that they have at their disposal, that the checks and balances are implemented so that the risk of illegal entry into Australia from foreign crewed vessels is at a minimum. The system is not perfect; no-one would anticipate that we would have perfect systems. The challenge is to minimise the imperfections as much as we can. This government, its services and its agencies are doing that to a very commendable level. Currently there is a meeting of the International Maritime Organisation in London. At this meeting, negotiations are being conducted on a new international maritime transport security framework or regime. The Australian government believes that a valid passport should be the preferred identity document for all seafarers, and this will be raised at that meeting in London. Next year the government will be requiring seafarers entering Australia to carry passports for identity purposes. Clearly it is important that foreign crew have a means of identity that can confirm that they are legitimate and so that they can be tracked should they go onshore and have the capacity to move around the Australian mainland. Legislation will be introduced to implement these and other appropriate measures to protect not only those personnel from the crews but also the Australian mainland.I want to talk about the flags of convenience vessels that were raised in the member's motion. Shipping is a global industry and Australia benefits tremendously from this industry. We are an island nation, an island continent. It is critical that we maintain our shipping routes and that we protect vessels that come to our country and trade around our nation. Ships clearly have to meet international safety and marine protection standards. Foreign crew cannot simply come onto the mainland of Australia. We have standards; we have requirements. At this time of international uncertainty, it is incumbent upon the Australian government to ensure not only that foreign crew are protected but also that their movements are monitored and no illegal or inappropriate entry into the country takes place. (Time expired)13:28:009857Grierson, Sharon, MPMs GRIERSON00AMPNewcastleALP00—I rise today to support my colleague the member for Bass in her private member's motion on foreign crewed vessels. In this troubled age when the security of this country and the commitment to avoiding a Bali type incident on our shores is absolutely paramount, we all acknowledge that special measures and reviews of our current practice are essential. We are members of this parliament and representatives and voices for the people of Australia. The responsibility falls on each and every one of us to do all that is reasonably possible to protect the people of Australia from possible threats of terrorist activity. The private member's motion put forward by the honourable member for Bass draws all our attention to that need. Securing our nation has always been a high priority for the Labor Party, but now we need to realistically do a proper risk assessment. It does not take any particular skill or imagination to recognise that our ports are major potential entry points for anyone seeking to come to Australia illegally or for those with mal-intent.Unfortunately, the general public is not so intimately aware of the increased risk of illegal entry by foreign crewed vessels that, under this government's approach, are now able to spend extended periods on the Australian coast. Under the Howard government, there has been little rational practice or debate when it comes to the maritime industry. Union eradication remains the main agenda, whilst the security of our nation and its environment comes a poor second. So, whilst clearly screened and identified, well-trained Australian crews are available to crew vessels that regularly trade here, foreign crewing is actively assisted by the government's current policies.Recently, with my colleague the member for Shortland, I joined Dean Sommers of the International Transport Federation on an inspection of a flag of convenience ship in Newcastle harbour. This ship, Angel 3, was flagged in Malta, run by Greek officers and manned by a Burmese crew. We were not allowed to see any crew information or permits and were denied access to crew facilities. After this visit, as well as holding concerns for the rights of the crew members, I was deeply disturbed at the opportunity that clearly existed for corruption and for compromise to the safety standards that all Australians would rightfully expect. Unfortunately, these experiences are commonplace for the ITF. That is why the Labor Party proposes, as part of its Protecting Australia policy, to support the International Maritime Organisation in the development of seafarer identity cards and other measures to ensure world-class maritime security. The recent sinking of the oil tanker Prestige off the coast of Spain has been a sad and costly reminder that we do need a rigorously regulated maritime and shipping industry to protect not just our security but also our natural environment. People's livelihoods and environmental damage are high prices to pay for not enforcing acceptable standards worldwide. And there is a need for more to be done in Australia. At least three ships recently black-listed by the European Commission have visited Australia in the past 18 months. The 27-year-old Agios Dimitrios was in Weipa in July 2001, the Feyza, under a Turkish flag, was in Miner Bay in January 2001 and the Tahir Kiran, under a Turkish flag, was in Melbourne in April this year. They were among 66 ships listed by the European Commission as being `too dangerous for European waters'. Our standards are certainly too low.I acknowledge, though, the work done by AMSA in exercising their port state control program. In their 2001 report, they state that about 60 per cent of all ships inspected are found to have deficiencies. Their statistics also show that there is a strong correlation between ship age and detention rates. Only about one in three ships of less than five years of age are found to have deficiencies, whereas nearly four out of five ships over 10 years of age are deficient. It seems that we need to be extremely diligent with older ships. Unfortunately, with the Prestige this was left far too late.During 2001, 2,913 inspections were carried out by AMSA on ships registered under 61 foreign flags. They observed that 127 ships registered under 34 foreign flags had deficiencies sufficiently serious to impair their seaworthiness and warrant detention. In contrast to these figures, only one Australian flagged ship was detained—obviously a very valid reason for promoting an Australian shipping industry. Perhaps the Labor Party's policy to introduce a coastguard fleet will be the first move in rebuilding our shipping industry. According to the AMSA report, of concern was the performance of chemical tankers, which represented two per cent of ships inspected but five per cent of ships needing to be detained. I also noted in the report that Newcastle, which is in my electorate, had the highest number of inspections of any port in Australia, and I congratulate Newcastle AMSA staff on their diligence. The report also showed that in 2001 there were 208 inspections and seven detentions of oil tankers. Substandard ships and floating rust buckets pose a serious risk to places like the Great Barrier Reef and to the many areas of Australia that depend on the fishing industry and seaside tourist industries. The current misuse of the cabotage system by the minister for transport in granting permits to FOCs at the expense of Australian ships is a great risk to us. (Time expired)13:33:009858Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I rise to speak to the member for Bass's motion. While I support the broad thrust of her argument, the government is committed to both maritime employment and national security issues. Perhaps the member for Bass recognises this, as I see her original motion has been modified considerably. She originally wanted to call on the House to condemn the Howard government for its policies that `continue to undermine the Australian shipping industry'. That apparently is no longer her case, nor should it be.Australia relies almost totally on foreign shipping to carry our exports and imports, involving about 10,000 foreign ship visits annually. Coasting trade permits are issued to foreign ships only where there is no suitable Australian licensed ship available to carry cargo when and where required by the shipper. The vast majority of such permits are issued to foreign ships that are already here to carry Australia's exports and imports. Most permits cover carriage of coastal cargo during a single voyage only. Continuing voyage permits cover carriage of coastal cargo incidental to a series of international voyages to and from Australia. Again, this is done only where there is no licensed ship available to carry cargo in that period.Foreign crews are under the control of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. At least 48 hours before arriving in Australia, crew lists are sent to the Australian Customs Service, which undertakes checks against Customs and Immigration alert listings. The shadow minister for regional and urban development, transport and infrastructure confirmed recently that the opposition would continue—I stress `would continue'—to issue coasting trade permits if it came to office. I recognise that arrangements for foreign seafarers are an integral part of the review of national security arrangements. As international workers, sailors are a special group with unique needs, such as shore leave. Department of Transport and Regional Services officers are presently negotiating a new international maritime transport security framework. This should include mandatory international ship and port security planning, access control and measures to improve international seafarer identity documents. Our position is that valid passports should be the preferred identity document for all seafarers. In answer to the charge of surveillance of foreign crews, from November 2003 the government will require seafarers to carry passports for identity purposes. It is anticipated legislation will be introduced in the parliament in the new year to implement these and other measures to protect the Australian maritime industry from terrorist attack.Shipping is a highly competitive global industry, and the reality is that foreign shipowners seek the most economical methods of operating their vessels. This means a large proportion of the vessels that come here will be registered under flags different from the owners' national registry. Australia benefits from this by accessing cheaper shipping services that would otherwise not be possible. These ships are required to meet international safety and maritime protection standards. While I share the member's concern for the security of our coastal environment, I assure her the government takes its responsibility for the maritime environment very seriously. As an example, I mention the government's work to protect the Great Barrier Reef, the southernmost point of which is alongside my own electorate of Hinkler. In July 2002, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services established the Great Barrier Reef Shipping Management Group to oversee implementation of 41 recommendations of the review of the Great Barrier Reef ship safety and pollution prevention measures. The group has a plan which (1) aims to ensure that appropriate safety and environmental protection measures are in place for shipping in the region, taking into account the reef's World Heritage status and the huge economic significance of shipping to Queensland and Australia and (2) enables measures to be put in place by government agencies to maximise protection of the region and to minimise risks and incidents. In short, the government takes the measures raised by the member quite seriously.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The debate is adjourned and will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Committees9859985913:38:009859Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I rise to make a statement entitled Annual review of Australia and the World Trade Organisation, about the committee's ongoing scrutiny of the World Trade Organisation. In the last parliament, the joint committee resolved that, in the context of the examination of the annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and in order to allow for continuous and cumulative parliamentary scrutiny of the WTO, the Trade Subcommittee should institute an annual, one-day hearing on the WTO with specific references to the progress towards trade liberalisation and the implications of its activities for Australia. The committee was of the view that the parliament should take an active role in reviewing the manner in which Australia engages with the multilateral trade system managed by the WTO. Moreover, with the international desire to reach agreement on a new negotiating round at the Doha ministerial meeting in November 2001, given the scuttled 1999 Seattle ministerial, an annual parliamentary review of the WTO had added significance.The former Director-General of the WTO, the Hon. Mike Moore, in the lead-up to Doha, stressed that openness, fairness and predictability are at the heart of the multilateral trade system. He emphasised the vital role that parliamentarians have to play in bringing international organisations and people closer together and holding the WTO and governments accountable. He said that parliamentarians need to engage in the critical global issues and be perceived by the public to be doing so. Two broad categories define Australia's interest in the WTO; namely, market access and the system of rules and disciplines that is provided by WTO agreements. As a nation, we are dependent on international trade, and strong and enforceable international trade rules are of vital importance to us. The WTO is the only organisation that sets enforceable international trade rules and provides the best available mechanisms for us to gain real improvements across the board in market access for Australia's goods and services. The public hearing was conducted in three sessions: session one provided for an overview of the WTO and the Doha Round negotiations; session two looked at market access and the negotiations for agricultural services and industrial products; and session three examined the issues of intellectual property, trade and environment, and trade and development. We invited organisations and individuals to give evidence on the issues within the three sessions and received 10 exhibits to the scrutiny process. I would like to present to the House the transcript of evidence taken at the review hearing in August and the list of exhibits we received. The Hansard transcript of the hearing can be viewed on our web site.The hearing provided a valuable opportunity to review progress on negotiations and to raise and canvass issues of critical importance to Australia in the Doha Round. The difficulties facing our agricultural products, particularly dairy and sugar, in the multilateral trade negotiations were discussed. Market access is the No. 1 issue not only for our agriculture but for our services and industrial products as well. Australian agricultural producers also face barriers in the form of export subsidies and trade-distorting domestic systems. The transcript clearly sets out the difficulties we face, notwithstanding the commitment contained in the ministerial declaration launched at the Doha Round last November to correct and prevent restrictions in world agricultural markets. We were told that progress in agriculture is important not just because agriculture contributes vitally to Australia's export performance and remains the most distorted of all international markets but because progress in agriculture is necessary to ensure progress across the entire round. Unless Australia actively drives the case for change, along with our fellow Cairns Group members, there will be little fundamental reform.Furthermore, there was discussion on the significant gains in services that are up for GATS negotiations, particularly in the area of market access and the domestic regulation that supports it. The complexity of the area was highlighted, with its diverse mix of policies and impediments, as well as the need for managing change and the significance of the sequencing of reform for Australia. It was pointed out that, although there will be gains at the end, there are some really tricky dangers ahead. Evidence presented at the hearing showed the interlocking nature of what is up for negotiation in the Doha Round. Besides the well-scrutinised issue of trade and development linkages, the importance of intersectoral effects was stressed. For instance, the success of the agriculture sector depends on having an efficient services sector in place, and the export of education services online depends on having an efficient telecommunications sector in place.In conclusion, we are pleased to provide some parliamentary scrutiny of these important negotiations. Openness and transparency are vital ingredients for our democracy. For that reason, we urge the government to be mindful of the need to keep the parliament, through the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, fully informed of progress in negotiations across all sectors, if necessary on a confidential basis. I present a copy of the statement, together with evidence received by the committee.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I thank the member for Forrest for his accommodation. Order! I believe it is close enough to 1.45 p.m. for us to proceed to statements by members, so I will call on statements by members. Statements by Members9861986113:44:009861Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—In the last few years we have heard a lot of talk about how people who live in the city do not care about people in rural Australia. But, when faced with a disaster, Australians—wherever they live and whatever their backgrounds—come together to lend a hand. That is the Australian way. That also applies to Croatian Australians. People of Croatian heritage have lived close to the land and the sea. They know that nature can be both bountiful and cruel, and they know how people suffer when nature is cruel. In response to the current drought in rural areas, the Croatian Australian community in south-western Sydney has gladly pitched in to help with the Farmhand appeal. So far, it has raised $20,165. On behalf of the people of the Fowler electorate, I thank the organisers of, and donors to, this appeal. In particular, I thank the residents and staff of Cardinal Stepinac Village for their generosity.986113:46:009861Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—In a bitter parallel to the toils of captaincy faced by the touring English team, `Never mind Nasser' were the words that greeted me after yesterday's Press Club Cup cricket match. The press gallery had done a Howard, securing a third consecutive win against the coalition team on a Reid Oval wicket that had gone out in sympathy with our nation's parched landscape. After winning the toss and batting, the coalition was led by MPs all making starts: Dave `Boom Boom' Tollner, 17; Hockey, 16; and Billson, 10. Brough went on to top score with 34, ably partnered by Macfarlane chief of staff, Stephen Galilee, with an impressive 30. GMS's Brad Emery added 13 toward an all-out score of 155.The ABC's Ross Solly was the pick of the gallery bowlers, with four for 14 off five overs, well supported behind the stumps by the Advertiser's Phil Coorey, who caught three pre New York `nicks'. Nine's Josh Wilson impressed in the field and bowled a zippy spell. The Australian's Luke McIlveen and Alan `ABC' Jenkins each bagged two coalition scalps.The potent coalition bowling attack led by Joe Dawes, Dave Tollner and Mal Brough had the gallery on the defence. Tollner's magnificent six overs, four maidens, none for five and Dawes's one for 11 off six kept the run rate down to an early trickle. Seeing off the pace attack, Solly took to the bowling to retire at 51 in a best on ground performance.The Financial Review's Jason Koutsoukis found the accelerator after a rev from gallery skipper, Steve Lewis, to build a match-winning innings of 44. Tom Allard of Sydney Morning Herald fame impressed the crowd—half of whom were his family—to bring home the lower order with 15 runs and a gutsy late innings effort, before McIlveen hit the winning runs off a rising short ball in a lively Hockey final spell where he bagged two gallery batsmen.Jeremy Irvine's umpiring was faultless in a nail-biter. The gallery's 158 with wickets and two balls to spare saw it retain the Press Club Cup—at least until the 2003 contest early in the new year.986113:47:009861Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I would like to congratulate all the family, friends and others involved when the Devonport Playhouse commenced in 1992 with volunteer assistance. It continues to operate to this day. Six hundred families use the Playhouse each year, and an average of 105 adults and 160 children use the Playhouse each week. Effectively, the Playhouse provides an informal area for parents and carers of children under five that facilitates the development of supportive social networks. Parents meet with other parents and stay with their children while their children play in a very play friendly environment, and parents have a network of friends and support. As well, a series of activities and programs are available to them on parenting, health and wellbeing for women, social skills, first aid for young families and postnatal depression. There are seminars and support groups; annual foot screenings; healthy food for kids; libraries with books, magazines and videos; information displays; community noticeboards; structured playgym sessions; and so forth. Unfortunately, the Playhouse is experiencing financial difficulties at the moment. As a community we seek to assist them in this excellent initiative. It does not fall under normal programs, either state or federal, in terms of child care, and that shows the lack of flexibility in these programs. It is to be hoped that policy changes will lead to greater flexibility and assist self-help organisations such as the Playhouse in Devonport.986213:49:009862Ciobo, Steven, MPMr CIOBO00AN0MoncrieffLP10—I was delighted to learn today that Griffith University, as a result of its Capital Development Pool funding application, has received $2 million towards its capital development. This is a terrific boost and a much needed shot in the arm for Griffith University. The Gold Coast is Australia's sixth-largest city and the fastest growing in Australia. As such this $2 million will go a long way toward ensuring Griffith University will be able to provide additional infrastructure for its students. It is a tremendous success for Griffith University to be one of 30 projects across 29 different universities to be selected, out of a total of 56 projects submitted seeking funding of more than $180 million. For Queensland generally to receive nearly 31 per cent of the total funding available is a tremendous boost. I congratulate the Vice-Chancellor of Griffith University, Glyn Davis, for his success in putting forward this application. I am certain Griffith University will continue to go from strength to strength, and I am delighted and very proud to be part of the Gold Coast city and the development of Griffith University.986213:50:009862Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I want to draw the House's attention to some amazing comments by the Treasurer last week. He was asked about the Victorian election result and he had a few things to say about it. He said: we need to re-energise party membership ... we're going to have a full review of the situation.He said: I would like to encourage younger people to join the party.He went on to say that the Victorian Liberals need to `set up supporters groups' and that they need to encourage businesspeople, who: may not want to sit around and debate the minutes of the last meeting in someone's living room. There's a place for that kind of branch membership, but there is a place for other kinds of branch membership, people who have particular policy interests After bagging the Hawke-Wran review, the Liberal Party are going to have their own Hawke-Wran review. I wonder who they are going to get to do it. I can hardly imagine them getting Malcolm Fraser and Jeff Kennett to sit around and tell them what is wrong with their party organisation. The Treasurer would do well to get on the blower to Jeff Kennett and Malcolm Fraser because they are two men who know a thing or two about leadership challenges. He would be doing very well indeed if he got some advice from those blokes about what it takes to mount a leadership challenge and have the backbone to do it. It is all well and good for the Liberal Party to stand here and bag the Hawke-Wran review. They hated it so much they are going to have their own Hawke-Wran review.986213:52:009862Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I rise to record my appreciation for the magnificent efforts of our bushfire fighters. Over the past few days some 4,000 volunteer firefighters have battled fires raging around New South Wales, particularly north-west of Sydney, the Blue Mountains and the South Coast. Years of build-up of fuel, the impact of the drought and the adverse weather conditions combined to create a nightmare scenario. Our firefighters have done an outstanding job battling these horrendous conditions. They have been ably supported by the SES, regular fire brigades, and National Parks and Wildlife Service personnel.The fact that we have not lost more than 50 houses—as tragic as that is—is a tribute to their courage, their professionalism and their tenacity. Time after time they have been the only thing between a towering wall of flame and someone's house. Many people owe their property and in some cases their lives to these magnificent Australians. I want to particularly acknowledge the men and women of the Rural Fire Service and other volunteer organisations in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. After a horrendous couple of weeks last Christmas they are on the front line again this summer. The many hours spent throughout the year in training, the readiness to respond to the call, the courage to battle life-threatening conditions and the tenacity to fight for the property of others as if it were their own are absolutely inspiring. We are deeply grateful to them and very proud of them.986313:53:009863Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I have just seen a CNN wire service report that the Israeli government is forbidding, for the second year in a row, Yasser Arafat to worship with people of all faiths in Bethlehem at Christmas. One would assume that in this time of goodwill to all people, a time when we remember our families and our friends and get together to share reminiscences of the past 12 months, people of all races and creeds, of all positions—whether the lowest in status or presidents and kings—would forgive and forget and allow people to worship together.This move by the Israeli government for the second year in a row to forbid Yasser Arafat to worship in Bethlehem, a place that holds great significance for people of all faiths, is a retrograde step. It should be condemned and hopefully will be reversed quickly.986313:54:009863May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Last Saturday, I had lunch with a small but dedicated group of volunteers in my community. These people volunteer their time as narrators to the Hear a Book service, which started in Hobart 30 years ago. The Hear a Book service produces contemporary books and magazines on audio cassettes for the blind and print disabled. The volunteer narrators produce up to 40 new books each month and these books are provided for the blind and print disabled through libraries around Australia.Approximately five per cent of the Australian population has some form of print disability. Hear a Book has recorded nearly 150,000 hours of master tapes and sold 1.5 million tapes in the past 30 years. There are around 10,600 titles in the catalogue. The books have ended up in places such as the USA, Canada, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom and all Australian states and territories.The Commonwealth government has in place a scheme of financial assistance to assist producers such as Hear a Book through the Department of Family and Community Services. However, there is no funding from either the state or local government associations. I believe it is important that the Commonwealth continues to support the funding scheme. I urge both state and local governments to assist or the scheme could close.I thank Russ Walkington, one of the committee members on the Gold Coast and a narrator, for his invitation to attend this special lunch. I would also like to pass on my thanks to Barbara and her team on the coast for their dedication and commitment to this important work.986313:55:009863Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—In my private member's motion moved in this parliament on 11 November I spoke of the importance of a good workplace experience to prepare young people for the world of work. I would now like to refer to an innovative mentoring program which is giving Blacktown Girls High School students a competitive edge in their search for employment after school.This mentoring program is reported upon in one of Blacktown's leading local papers, the BlacktownAdvocate, by reporter Christine Nicolussi. Professional businesswomen from various fields, including journalism, engineering, management and law, have been matched with 24 students in years 10 and 11. The students often do work experience with their mentor to develop skills and establish contacts in the workplace. The program is designed, as Rebecca Simm, a teacher, has said: ... to give senior students the opportunity to have contact with women who are successful in their profession and to develop some sort of link with them so that when they finish their HSC they have a stepping stone in their career choice.Already a number of students have developed useful links. Year 11 student Jessica Nowak has been linked with an engineer in the aviation field and has been offered an apprenticeship in this industry. Another year 11 student, Leanne Culina, has been working with a lawyer. In all, this mentoring program is an outstanding success and the college principal, Mr Edward Gavin, and his staff are to be congratulated on this outstanding program. Blacktown Girls High School is one of the many great high schools in the electorate of Greenway. (Time expired)986413:57:009864Dutton, Peter, MPMr DUTTON00AKIDicksonLP10—Today I take this opportunity to thank the schools within my electorate of Dickson for their continued support over the last 12 months. I have undertaken since being elected in November 2001 to visit as many of the 30-odd schools within my electorate as possible to gain an understanding of the challenges that they face, predominantly from a lack of funding from the state governments, particularly in relation to infrastructure and repainting and refurbishment of the schools.I have written to, and with the assistance of Education Queensland contacted a number of, the principals from schools within my electorate to follow up on an initiative announced by Minister Brendan Nelson. That is an initiative whereby state primary schools will raise the flag of a morning and sing the National Anthem. I think it is a most worthy program and certainly worthy of support of all members not only on this side of the House but also on the other side. I think it is important for those young primary school students in particular to recognise the efforts of those diggers and veterans who have fought for this country to make it free and to make the society that we enjoy today. If we can promote that cause, only good can come from it. I also take this opportunity to say thank you and merry Christmas to all those schools. (Time expired)986413:59:009864Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I would like to draw to the attention of the House again my question on notice No. 43, which I directed to the Treasurer on 13 February this year and which deals with the percentage of barristers and solicitors who pay the top marginal rate of income tax. I can assure you not too many do. That led to me putting a question to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, question No. 1171 last Tuesday, the very same question about the amount of tax that barristers and solicitors are not paying in this country.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Tax avoidance.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Tax avoidance, yes. The Leader of the Opposition is correct: tax evasion and avoidance. On 30 August 2002, the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Coonan, put out a media release strengthening laws to prevent tax abuse. That was in response to the serial bankruptcies of a number of barristers in Australia who are not paying much tax. This is a very serious question. I ask the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and Senator Coonan to tell the people of Australia how much tax barristers and solicitors are paying in this country because they are not paying their fair share. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the time for members' statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice9864986414:00:009864Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can he confirm that the Australian National Audit Office put him on notice back in 1998, when it warned him that there were areas where Australia's aviation security regime could be strengthened even further? Can he also confirm the warning from the Minister for Justice and Customs in the Senate in February of this year, when he said:Of course, you can have a bomb in the hold, but it has to be accompanied baggage. That then is a situation where you have a suicide bomber—and we do not rule out that possibility. It is a legitimate question and one we are addressing. Minister, given public confirmation now that terrorists in our region are prepared to use suicide bombers, when will you stop dithering and finally act to protect the travelling Australian public with rigorous aviation security reform?9865Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Australia is not dithering in the area of aviation safety. Indeed, the ANAO has been reviewing aviation safety arrangements and coordination between agencies and what have you, and in due course will be reporting on that. It is my clear understanding—without in any way pre-empting its report—that the ANAO believes that Australia's aviation sector, and the transport department in particular, responded very quickly and very comprehensively under the prevailing circumstances after 11 September 2001. Right around the world many of those reasonable rules which have been taken in relation to aviation security were thrown overboard. One of the most central thoughts and guiding principles was that people who were going to do something nasty with an aeroplane would not be intent upon killing themselves; they would not put things in the hold. That has been the subject of review. Based on security assessments—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker, it would appear that not many in the Leader of the Opposition's camp are interested in the answer to the question that he raises, even when it goes to national security. Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for McMillan! 4K4Mr ANDERSON—I make the point—84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—It's not a debating society, you King's School moron!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for McMillan will withdraw that remark without qualification or I will deal with him instantly. 84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—Mr Speaker, I seek your clarification. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for McMillan! I have warned you.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—Which comment are you referring to?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for McMillan will excuse himself from the House. The member for McMillan then left the chamber.4K4Mr ANDERSON—It is an important question and it deserves an answer. It is only reasonable that people might like to hear the answer. In broad terms, we have been checking on the basis of risk assessments what goes into the hold of many aircraft since 11 September and we have been actively engaged in developing a much further reaching program for implementation in this country, which is, if I can put it this way, almost completely—849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—There is no security in some of your airports at all—no security at all! 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Braddon! 849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—We have no security at all! 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Braddon!4K4Mr ANDERSON—Almost concluded by cabinet now are arrangements which we will be putting to the industry very shortly. They will see, as the Prime Minister has foreshadowed, very significant further security arrangements being put in place. I do not intend spelling those out chapter and verse, for obvious reasons. I simply make the point that a very great deal has been done. We respond not on the basis of cost but on the basis of risk assessments. We are absolutely at the cutting edge of what is being done in terms of aviation security internationally. I suggest that for the alternative government in this country to be talking about dithering is not only wrong; it is hardly an appropriate signal to be sending. 986614:06:009866Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the wide consultation process undertaken by the government with rural communities in relation to the impact of this devastating drought? How is the government responding to the extreme circumstances that rural and regional communities find themselves in? 9866Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Paterson, who, along with many members from both the Liberal and National parties, has been making very vigorous representations to the government in relation to the impact of the drought on so many parts of Australia. I think all Australians are aware that this drought is particularly widespread, that its serious to severe rainfall deficiency now covers about 70 per cent of Australia and that some areas are experiencing their worst rainfall in recorded history, or facing their third successive year of drought.As a result of that and of representations made to me by farming organisations and also the representations made to the government by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the government has decided on a number of additional measures totalling some $368 million over three years. When that is added to the estimated $360 million potentially committed to underwriting the cost of exceptional circumstances arrangements and the $460 million which is the impact of the revenue forgone in relation to the farm management deposits, we see an amount already committed by this government—on conservative estimates—of close to $1.2 billion in order to respond to what in many parts of Australia is arguably the worst drought that this country has had for the last 100 years.The additional measures that have been announced today include the introduction of six months income support for all eligible farmers anywhere in Australia in the areas suffering a one in 20 rainfall deficiency over the period March 2002 to November 2002. As more than 80 per cent of farmers in New South Wales—the state worst affected—are in areas that meet this criterion, we have decided that eligible farmers in the whole state of New South Wales will be entitled to immediate interim income support. And so as to guarantee equality of treatment to different parts of Australia, I also inform the House that, should the proportion of farmers affected in other states reach the level of 80 per cent, eligible farmers across the whole state will have access to similar income support.The effect of this decision will be to dramatically simplify the processes between the states and the Commonwealth regarding the treatment of interim assistance and the declaration of exceptional circumstances. It means that, if you are in an area where the rainfall falls within the criterion of one in 20 years over that nine-month period, you will have immediate access to the interim income support for a period of six months. Applications for exceptional circumstances will continue to be made in accordance with existing procedures. The question of whether the business support available under exceptional circumstances will become available will be determined according to the treatment of those applications.In addition, there will be introduced an interest rate subsidy on new and additional commercial loans up to $100,000 for stock support and drought recovery for eligible farmers in the areas receiving drought interim or exceptional circumstances income assistance. An interest rate subsidy on existing or new commercial loans of up to $100,000 will also be made available to small business in areas that are declared to be entitled to exceptional circumstances. Those subsidies will be subject, not surprisingly, to eligibility criteria that demonstrate that the business has been severely undermined by the drought. That decision has been taken in recognition of the fact that, when an area is affected by the drought, it is not only the farmers but also the small businesses in the area with which the farmers do trade and business that are severely affected by the drought. We have also decided to establish Drought Force, which is a Work for the Dole type program in drought affected areas, to develop and carry out activities that have a skill retention and drought mitigation aspect. The measures announced today follow, as I said at the beginning of this answer, a number of other decisions that have been taken by the government. This drought is devastating in its breadth, its impact, its length and the social and economic consequences that it is having. When you examine the measures that I have announced today and you add them to the measures that we have already introduced, they demonstrate a sustained determination by this government to respond in an appropriate, in a generous, in a timely and in a comprehensive fashion to this very severe drought.986714:12:009867Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, are you aware that there is no—I repeat, no—passenger or carry-on luggage security screening at regional airports of Burnie and Devonport in my electorate, which cater for a population of 80,000 citizens? Minister, in light of heightened security alerts and awareness post 11 September 2001, why do you fail to give even the most basic security screening protection for my constituents and others leaving Burnie and Devonport airports?9867Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I will be very shortly making a major announcement on security arrangements after extensive consultations right across the industry. In response at all times to security risk assessments, we have been able to move in a way to secure the safety of the travelling public. I would make the general point, as I made a moment ago, that we are very much at the forefront, internationally, of ensuring that the travelling public—and those who travel via air, in particular—have their safety securitised. But again, I would emphasise that we have been working on a very detailed response—849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked about Devonport and Burnie airports in my electorate.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Braddon will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister is entirely in order.4K4Mr ANDERSON—As soon as I have been in a position to advise the industry of exactly how all these matters will be handled—that will be a matter of days, not weeks—all will be revealed, including in relation to the airport that you raise.986714:15:009867Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10—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 measures being undertaken by the government to alleviate the effects of the drought on the community and on individuals? Are community service organisations assisting in this effort?9867Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question and recognise his very real interest in it. The Prime Minister and I recently visited Cobar, where we spent quite a bit of time talking to people in that community who are not farmers but are feeling the effects of the extraordinary downturn in their local regional economy. We are seeking to help keep farmers' liquidity up in this crisis because that is obviously a foundation stone for regional economies like Cobar and many others across New South Wales, and indeed Australia. Farm spending is the lifeblood of many small towns, and businesses in those towns depend on the rural industries to provide a basis for their economy and for the people who they employ. Today's announcement of drought type loans for small businesses in drought hit country towns is an important extension of our drought response. It will help keep those businesses viable, help them keep their skilled tradesmen and help ensure that, when the tractors start up again, the services are there to make the whole thing operate. This program, along with Drought Force, represents important extensions of our response. They will help regional communities carry through what are unquestionably extraordinarily difficult times.I want to touch on one other thing. There are many people out there providing counselling services because drought can be extraordinarily stressful. It is not just the financial impact for many families; it is the difficulties day after day of the grinding work of trying to keep livestock alive and families intact. As has been quite widely recorded, many people are now facing very real personal stress. They have been greatly ground down. Today's announcement will go a long way to providing some heart and cheer to those people. I want to commend to members of the House, their staff and others who may be dealing with people ringing in or meeting people suffering great stress the fact that Lifeline have put together what they call a Tool Kit for Getting Through the Drought. We had a little launch of this last Friday. It is a tool kit that offers very valuable advice on how to recognise the symptoms of stress. It provides ideas on ways to deal with it, whether it is looking at financial options, looking out for your children and loved ones, or simply looking after your own physical and mental health. The kit is available from Lifeline on their JUST ASK service on 1300 13 11 14, from Lifeline directly or from my office. For the interest of the House, I table the kit. 986814:18:009868Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I refer to reports that the federal government could face a bill of up to $300 million to kit out the country's seven major domestic airport terminals with X-ray screening equipment to combat terrorism. Minister, can you confirm this estimate for major airports; and also what the total cost will grow to if regional airports such as Burnie and Devonport are included in the Prime Minister's plan for screening in-hold luggage? Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the federal government will meet the cost, or does it intend passing it on to air travellers through the airlines?9868Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—As I have indicated in the last two answers, the government has put together a very comprehensive package to take our aviation safety further ahead building on what has already been done. I find it extraordinary that people in this House would reject the work of agencies right across the nation which has obviously been very substantial.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—I just heard the comment `haven't done anything'.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will not respond to interjections.UNKNOWNMr ANDERSON—The first question was about the ANAO. As I said in response to that, without pre-empting their report, in their discussions and interactions with me, they have gone so far as to say and acknowledge that enormous response capabilities were put in place after September 11. Indeed, they were. I was Acting Prime Minister at the time of that very unfortunate event. By the time the airlines and airports started operating the very next morning, our agencies that you apparently now want to so willingly disparage—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order to do with relevance.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman is aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has not concluded his answer. He is talking about airport security. The question was about airport security. On a matter of relevance, I cannot intervene.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, on relevance—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have ruled that the Deputy Prime Minister is entirely relevant to the question asked.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—The question went to who is paying.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman will resume his seat.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I again make the point that it is absurd, alarming, misleading and simply not true to say that nothing is being done or that we have not responded at all times very quickly to intelligence reports and risk assessments. I think it is important that this House understand that. It is important that the travelling public understand that. We do not in any way play lightly with the safety and the security of Australians and never will. That ought to be clearly put before people.In terms of further security arrangements, I have to say to the House that the government have prepared and are about to start implementing a major further round of measures. We will be very shortly announcing what those measures in broad will be and how they will be funded. But I am not going to pre-empt the government's processes in that regard. 986914:22:009869Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, what benefits will be available to farmers and small business operators in my electorate of Riverina from the additional drought package announced today? When can those farmers and small business access this extra assistance? Who should they contact to gain further information on this assistance?9869Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Riverina for her question. The Prime Minister has today announced a range of new and additional measures to help Australian farmers facing drought. Those measures are on top of the interim announcements of support made in September and are, of course, in addition to the exceptional circumstances assistance that remains in place to help farmers in times of drought and during the recovery period. Collectively, these announcements represent the most comprehensive drought assistance package ever provided for Australian farmers in times of need. The amount of money that will be committed to this relief demonstrates the clear commitment of this government to the farmers of Australia and our determination to help them through these difficult times. Eligible farmers in areas like the Riverina will be able to apply from today for income assistance measures, and the other measures announced by the Prime Minister also apply from today.One of the interesting elements of this announcement—which I think will be especially of interest to members like the member for Riverina—is the fact that farmers do not have to wait for their state to make an application for an exceptional circumstances declaration. This assistance is available to all farmers in areas that meet the nine-month rainfall deficiency between March and November 2002. So many farmers will be eligible for benefits even though their state has not bothered to lodge an EC application in their interests. In fact, as the Prime Minister mentioned, in a state like New South Wales, where so many farmers meet the nine-month rainfall deficiency criteria, all farmers in the entire state who meet the eligibility criteria will be able to receive this income support.It is also significant that two other important announcements have been made today. Farmers in those same areas will be eligible for some assistance with loans that they need to take out to help them with feeding their livestock or other measures to cope with the current drought. In addition, small businesses in EC declared areas will, for the first time, have access to some government assistance. This is also a major breakthrough and will benefit those already declared EC areas around Australia. These benefits will cover a very significant part of Australia. The map that I have here will perhaps help honourable members to realise that a very large part of Australia meets the nine-month rainfall deficiency criteria. If the statistical local area meets that criteria, all farmers in that region will be eligible for the assistance. This covers a very large proportion of the continent of Australia and will benefit all mainland states. There will not be any benefits going to Tasmania because, fortunately, they are in an even better position—they have had above average rainfall.This represents a very significant addition to the support available to farmers. I encourage those who believe they are eligible to contact their local Centrelink office or, if that is not convenient for them, to phone 13 23 16 and they can commence the process of applying for this assistance. Even if farmers are not able to apply today or they need a little time to get their applications together, the payments can be backdated to today—so farmers who are eligible will not miss out. This is a very warm and comprehensive response. It represents, as the Prime Minister indicated, a commitment of more than a billion dollars from the federal government towards drought assistance. That compares with the $55 million—the total of $55 million—that the states have so far committed between themselves.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—How much?GT4Mr TRUSS—They have committed $55 million between them, and they have paid probably only a trickle of that. It is time that the states followed the federal government's lead and provided real, helpful and meaningful support to farmers in these difficult times. 987014:27:009870Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has confirmed that, in the past three years alone, 177 foreign crew members are known to have jumped ship in Australia? Minister, given the public's demand for improved security post 11 September, do you concede that this number of ship jumpers is unacceptable? Is the minister also aware that his shipping policy favours foreign crew working continuously on our coast on special purpose visas that do not receive the same security checking as other work visas? Minister, isn't it time to stop your government's shipping policy undermining immigration protections and our national security and start giving the Australian shipping industry and workers a fair go?9870Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—One foreign ship worker jumping is one too many. The point I make at the outset is that it is against the law; we do not allow for it. I also make two other points. Our shipping policy does not favour foreign crews. You can only get a CVP or a SVP if there is no suitable Australian vessel available—a policy you yourself confirmed you would continue at a recent shipping conference. It also ought to be remembered that the very great bulk of Australian coastal trade is still carried in Australian bottoms. If you are really serious about Australian shipping being competitive, the first thing you would do would be to talk to the MUA about crew revolving, insurance, workers compensation and those sorts of matters. With your cooperation, we might be able to secure a stronger future for the Australian shipping industry.987014:30:009870May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House how the government is cutting income tax for older Australians? How many taxpayers are benefiting from these measures?9870Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for McPherson for her question. Some members of the House may recall that, when this government came to office, a self-funded retiree who was on the same income as a pensioner paid more tax—that is, if you were a pensioner on the same income as a self-funded retiree you got a tax rebate, but the self-funded retiree who did not earn one dollar more paid tax. This government introduced a policy that gave the self-funded retiree the same tax benefits as the pensioner on the same amount of income. I must say that it was very warmly welcomed by the self-funded retirees of Australia.In 2001 the government announced that the benefits to senior Australians—for pensioners and self-funded retirees—would be improved. The senior Australians' tax offset was introduced for the 2000-01 financial year. The year 2001-02 was the second year that it applied. I inform the House that in this financial year, 422,000 Australians have benefited from that senior Australians' tax offset—that is 422,000 older Australians have received a tax cut of, on average, $1,953. Those tax cuts for older Australians will give them an opportunity that was denied them under Labor. Over the two years of the scheme, the amount returned to older Australians has been $1.3 billion.A single older Australian can have an income of up to $20,000 under the senior Australians' tax offset and not pay any tax at all. The offset begins to phase out after $20,000 and, by the time they are on $37,840, they will pay full tax. A couple can earn up to $32,612 and pay no tax at all, and the offset begins to phase out after that. When their joint income reaches $58,244, couples will pay full tax. These very significant reductions in taxation for senior Australians were put in place by this government when it came to office, and they were extended in 2001. The government is now returning a bit of tax to the seniors in our community—whom our community should value—to enable them in this period of their lives to live better on their savings and investments and to have a better standard of life. These are real benefits for older Australians. 987114:33:009871Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, I refer to a letter to me from a constituent in Revesby who has been forced to undertake repairs on her car costing $2,500 because of damage caused by regular use of petrol containing 17 per cent ethanol. What assurance can the Treasurer give to my constituent that the government will protect her and other motorists from damage to their cars caused by high ethanol levels in petrol?9871Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question because it gives me the chance to repeat—as I have done in this House on numbers of occasions—that people should be very careful of the effect the petrol they use has on the warranties on their cars. If those warranties are contingent upon not allowing ethanol above a certain level in the tank, it is very important that people adhere to those warranties. I have also informed the House that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and Environment Australia are looking at the regulations specifying maximums in relation to ethanol. They will no doubt be taking scientific evidence into account before making a recommendation. I very much look forward to the recommendation that the minister intends to bring in relation to this matter.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the report detailing the 17 per cent ethanol content and also a copy of the letter to me by my constituent. I have blackened out the names of both the constituent and the petrol station concerned.Leave granted.987114:35:009871King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the 12,000-page declaration by Iraq of its weapons of nuclear and mass destruction? Does the minister expect this to be a full and frank account of what Iraq possesses?9871Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Wentworth for his question, and I appreciate his interest. As I think all members of the House would know, on Saturday night Iraq handed over roughly 12,000 pages of information to the United Nations on various programs, consistent with its requirement, under Security Council resolution 1441 to declare weapons of mass destruction. We note that Iraq has handed over these documents, but no-one as yet has read them; therefore, by definition, we have not. The material will arrive in New York today. Experts at UNMOVIC and the IAEA will analyse the material once it has been received, and it will be quite some days before they can make any qualitative judgments about the veracity of the declaration that Iraq has made. A particular challenge, clearly, will be to sort through information on dual use items, which are presented as being for civilian use only. Of course, this has been a longstanding issue.Iraq has always presented the seemingly benign use of these items as the raison d'etre for a particular factory or a particular facility, but these items can easily be put to a despicable use if the intent to do so exists. We all know from the history of Iraq that the intent to do so does indeed exist. Whether or not the declaration will be made available to the generality of United Nations members will be a matter for judgment by the United Nations Security Council. It is possible that the declaration will contain a good deal of sensitive information on how to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, or at least that could be discerned from the documents, and therefore pose a proliferation risk if those aspects of the documents were to be made public. It would indeed be an unwelcome development if Iraq's declaration were to add to the threat of weapons of mass destruction by providing vital information to would-be proliferators. These are the sorts of questions that UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Security Council will have to look at. In the meantime, UNMOVIC and the IAEA will work through the declaration and we can afford to be a little patient.I would say that Iraq's continuing claims, which it made again on Saturday, that it has no weapons of mass destruction at all are not encouraging and simply lack credibility. It is hard to believe that Saddam Hussein has spent the last four years getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction and his delivery capabilities. His past actions and preparedness to use chemical and biological weapons clearly suggest the opposite. As I said here in the House on 17 September, and as the US and the UK have spelt out in their dossiers, intelligence points to continuing attempts to acquire material for ongoing weapons of mass destruction and missile delivery programs. UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq at the end of 1998 unable to account for 360 tonnes of chemical warfare agents, chemical precursors for making VX nerve agent, over 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical and biological agents and the full extent of Iraq's biological weapons program. If the 7 December declaration is found to be fundamentally flawed or there are serious omissions, then resolution 1441 provides for the Security Council to discuss this issue. The burden of proof remains on Saddam Hussein to convince the international community that he is abiding by Security Council resolutions and that he has destroyed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability. The international community expects and demands of Saddam Hussein nothing other than an unambiguous declaration supported by verification and a demonstration of full and continuous cooperation.987214:40:009872McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Treasurer and follows from his answer to the question from my colleague the member for Banks. Is the Treasurer aware that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission advised the Senate on 21 November this year that use of petrol with more than 10 per cent ethanol could void motor vehicle warranties? Is the Treasurer also aware that the ACCC advised it was concerned there was no requirement for service stations to provide signs advising motorists of ethanol levels in petrol, which of course means that they cannot check whether they are breaching their warranties or not, because you will not set a standard to enable them to be advised?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser is aware that he is now falling outside the standing orders and will return to his question.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Treasurer, why have you failed to protect Australian motorists from the dangers of using petrol with above recommended levels of ethanol?9872Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have a copy of the transcript of the Senate inquiry and I will read what Mr Cassidy said:We spoke to various independent authorities. We also spoke to the various players in the industry and I have to say it was a very mixed story. People like the motor vehicle manufacturers, for argument's sake, said that they thought anything above 10 per cent was potentially a problem. But then there were others in the industry who pointed to overseas practice and who argued that you could certainly go up to 20 per cent.Apparently the overseas practice is 20 per cent—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—In Brazil!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, he asked me about the evidence and I am actually reading out the evidence. Unfortunately for him, he is not able to misrepresent it because we actually have it. When I read it out he starts disputing the evidence. The essence of your question is actually to support this evidence. That was the essence of the question. The evidence was that the motor car manufacturers think anything above 10 per cent is a problem. Others in the industry who rely on overseas practice argue that you can go to 20 per cent. Mr Cassidy went on to say:Between 10 per cent and 20 per cent there was quite a deal of conflicting evidence.So we have conflicting scientific evidence as to whether 10 per cent is the maximum or whether you can go to 20 per cent. No doubt that is argued by people on various scientific grounds. What is the government's position? The government's position is that Environment Australia, which is responsible for this area, is charged with looking at the scientific evidence and making a recommendation. I must confess I am not a scientific expert on whether or not a car can take 10 per cent or 20 per cent ethanol. This is beyond my ken. If I could resolve the scientific evidence, I would, but I cannot. Which is the appropriate body to resolve the scientific evidence? Environment Australia. What is happening? Environment Australia is making a recommendation. When Environment Australia makes a recommendation, the government presumably will accept or reject it, and the matter will be dealt with in that way. But for anybody to intervene and say that they know, without a proper evaluation of the scientific evidence, would not be right and it would not be a proper process. 987314:43:009873Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the number of the yet to be finalised protection applications from unauthorised boat arrivals? What steps has the government taken to achieve this outcome, and are there any factors that may put this at risk?9873Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question and the opportunity to update the House on where we are in relation to unauthorised border arrivals. As of today, we have four unauthorised boat arrivals awaiting a primary decision, and it is important to recognise the reasons for that. It is because there are potentially serious character issues and we are going through a natural justice process in each case before a final decision is taken. In matters of this sort where we have been able to achieve such decisions in quite short time frames, I can confirm to the House that 90 per cent of our caseload has been processed in approximately 17 weeks. But, when we know who people are and are able to get documentation readily from them as to who they are and where they are from, those claims have been able to be dealt with in as few as four or five weeks.It is interesting that the opposition are proposing that that all ought to be able to be done in a 90-day regime. I found it quite fascinating that they said that they would achieve a 90-day turnaround. By implicit criticism of the government, they said, `We will implement a better security and character checking system, because the government only initiates security checking when an asylum seeker's identity has been established.' I ask you: how do you speed up the process if what you are saying is, `We're going to do security checking before we know who they are'? I find it extraordinary that you can mount a criticism based upon the government wanting to know who people are before starting security checking.It is important to recognise that the Labor Party have had experience in relation to these matters. Some nine or 10 years ago, they attempted to impose a 273-day time frame, I think it was, in which to process onshore arrivals. They included with it a clock so that you could take into account when people were not being cooperative. When people stopped providing information you might need, the clock was not to run. They had not taken into account the way in which the courts might deal with these matters. The courts said that you could do something else when you thought the clock had stopped. What we found was that, even with 273 days, they eventually had claims from so-called asylum seekers for damages for false arrest because they had been held beyond the time that was permitted by the clock. They want to introduce a 90-day time frame and they expect that it will all be able to be done in that time and not be the subject of litigation.As a result of a range of measures that have been put in place by the government, we now have the situation where people do not seem to be getting into boats and risking their lives—and sometimes the lives of their wives and children—in coming to Australia. The opposition think you can cherry pick in relation to this range of measures, which I assert have all had an impact. One of the important measures has been the temporary protection visa regime, because it has made it less attractive for people to seek to come here than to apply properly overseas where they may get a more beneficial result. The temporary protection measure regime is a very important part of the total package. Absolutely essential for ensuring that you are able to deal with these issues are effective mandatory detention, the integrity measures in relation to processing and the provision of excision for Christmas Island, Ashmore Reef and the Cocos islands. It would be enhanced very considerably if you had further excisions in relation to the Coral Sea— DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—The Coral Sea?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Yes, absolutely; the Coral Sea islands and the Torres Strait islands. I am glad that the shadow minister is nodding agreement. The excision measures in their totality are absolutely essential for that. The removal of access to our generous judicial review system; the introduction of the privative clause; the multilateral and bilateral engagement we have had with countries in the region; the enhanced regional cooperation that we have achieved with countries in the region; the return agreement, such as that we have had with Afghanistan; the return of unauthorised boat arrivals where they have been able to be achieved; and the implementation of the Pacific solution are all measures which have had an impact. Yet the opposition think that you can cherry pick. They think you can take some and say, `Oh well, it will still work. You can send a signal to the people smugglers that you are going to wind back some of these initiatives and it will not have any impact.' The impact of our measures has been that from today it has been a year since the last boat was received on any Australian territory. On that occasion, a Sri Lankan vessel arrived at the Cocos islands. A year ago, two more boats after that sought to come to Australia—on 11 and 17 December—which were returned to Indonesia. The fact is that our successes are on the board. We have been able to save lives. We have been able to implement policy that has been effective. The only alternative policy being advanced is one that is designed to unwind those measures and give succour to people smugglers again.987414:51:009874McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question once again is to the Treasurer and it follows from his previous two answers. Is the Treasurer aware that the only country where the 20 per cent ethanol precedent exists is Brazil, in which country the cars are specifically modified for the purpose, including cars exported from Australia? Is the Treasurer further aware that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission advised the Senate on 21 November this year:We have thought about whether we can pursue legal action. But until we get some clarification of what an acceptable level of ethanol is in petrol—some sort of benchmark—our legal advice is that any sort of legal action by us would be fairly difficult.Treasurer, isn't this what makes it impossible for the ACCC to take action on behalf of the constituent of the member for Banks and other concerned consumers? Doesn't this advice also contradict your answer of 19 September when you said anybody who sold petrol with high levels of ethanol would be liable to fines of up to $1 million for misleading and deceptive conduct?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Obviously the answer is no. I noticed that, in Senator Conroy's very interesting discussion of this matter with the ACCC, the ACCC talked about exercising powers under section 52, which is misleading and deceptive conduct, which is what I said, and also under section 53A and section 55. So the answer to your question as to whether I was wrong in saying that proceedings could be taken under section 52, misleading and deceptive conduct? Patently not, because that is what the ACCC said on 21 November 2002. I quote Mr Cassidy:There are three sections that we think potentially would come into play: section 52, which is a general provision against misleading and deceptive conduct ...Then he went on to section 53A and section 55. Obviously the transcript completely guts the question that you have asked and confirms that you can take misleading and deceptive conduct.As to the previous part of the question as to whether a benchmark is recommended, of course, a benchmark is to be recommended based on the scientific evidence. Who is charged with evaluating the scientific evidence and setting the benchmark? Environment Australia, which is the organisation that has the scientific capacity, has been set with doing precisely that—looking at the benchmark. I am not going to set the benchmark, because I do not have the scientific credentials to do it. Although he is a distinguished academic, I do not think even the minister for the environment has the scientific credentials to do it. We have other eminent scientists. The member for Dobell is an eminent scientist who can find where lightning is going to strike within 100 yards and within time. He is an eminent scientist. We have many eminent scientists— K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Name them.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Well, I have named them. The member for Dobell.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer will not respond to interjections. The Treasurer will respond to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He is a very eminent scientist. We have many eminent scientists. The member for Leichhardt is an eminent scientist.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Treasurer!CT4Mr COSTELLO—He knows all the science of—what is it?—the lavatories at the public railway stations in Queensland.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer will respond to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—There is a doctor of medicine, the minister for education, an eminent scientist.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Treasurer, you will respond to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Having put all of those eminent scientists together, do we still have a unified view? As it turns out, Environment Australia is an organisation which is charged with coming up with this recommendation. Once it does, and once the minister reports to the cabinet, a decision will be made. I am afraid that, until that time, this is barking up a dry gully. If the opposition cannot do any better than this, we will just go through it time and time again.987514:55:009875Dutton, Peter, MPMr DUTTON00AKIDicksonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister update the House on how the government will implement the National Meningococcal C Vaccination Program?9875Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I thank the honourable member for Dickson for his question. Can I inform him and the House that an additional one million Australian children will receive free meningococcal C vaccine next year as part of the government's National Meningococcal C Vaccination Program. An increase in the availability of this vaccine has meant that more Australian children will be able to be protected through the scheme and protected from the disease earlier than had been anticipated. Over the next four years the government has increased its funding for the program from $101 million, as announced in August of this year, to $291 million. The program will be rolled out over the next four years. During 2003, children aged one to five years will be vaccinated via general practitioners, and adolescents aged 15 to 19 will be vaccinated through schools. Following this, children aged six to 14 years will be vaccinated at school in the years 2003-04 and 2004-05. As well as providing a catch-up dose of meningococcal C vaccine for all Australians aged one to 19 over the next few years, it is proposed that the meningococcal C vaccine will be added to the Australian standard vaccination schedule at 12 months of age.It is important to note that there is no effective vaccine available for the group B meningococcal disease, so it is imperative that parents and clinicians remain vigilant in looking out for the signs of meningococcal disease even if children have been vaccinated. This is part of the government's program to bring vaccinations to a much greater proportion of the Australian population. In 1996, when we came to government, Australia's full immunisation rate was only 53 per cent—well below countries such as China, Algeria, Laos and Vietnam. The government is proud of the fact that by September this year over 91 per cent of 12- to 15-month-old children were fully immunised. This is what the government's meningococcal vaccination program is all about—ensuring better health for all Australians.987614:58:009876Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. It also concerns ethanol. In particular, it refers to a statement the Prime Minister made in question time on 19 September in relation to a question then on ethanol. Prime Minister, in that answer, do you recall telling the House this:Cabinet made the decision based on a memorandum from a task force, which was prepared by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in consultation with ... Then you went on to list other departments. Prime Minister, didn't the memorandum discussed on 10 September by cabinet conclude that a 10 per cent cap should be set, including the following advice from the department of agriculture:Ethanol blends of more than 10 per cent can cause problems to a range of users. AFFA supports setting an upper limit of 10 per cent for an interim period, pending the outcome of the biofuels study.Prime Minister, given that cabinet based its decision on this memorandum, on what grounds did you ignore the conclusion that a 10 per cent cap should be set on ethanol blending in fuel?9876Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I remember answering questions on that. I will have to check the transcript to see if the Leader of the Opposition has correctly represented me. Even if he has on this occasion done so, nothing he has put to me gainsays what the Treasurer has been saying. We have invited Environment Australia, which is the expert body, to give us advice. This is a very interesting proposition of government: you make a decision to invite Environment Australia to make a judgment, to give you some scientific advice, and then you ignore it. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you and your colleagues on the front bench are missing, as you so often do, the point. The point is that we have invited Environment Australia to give us some scientific advice. When we get that scientific advice, armed with the expert advice we will make a decision. Nothing difficult, nothing complicated, nothing conspiratorial—it is plain, straightforward commonsense, which obviously eludes the Leader of the Opposition.987615:00:009876Hartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER00AMMCowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House about a report released today highlighting Australia's export performance in primary and manufactured products? What does exports growth mean for job growth in Australia?9876Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question. Today the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is releasing its report Exports of primary and manufactured products Australia 2001-02. That report indicates that total exports of manufactured and primary products stood at $113.7 billion in 2001-02. Manufactured goods have increased from $22.1 billion in 1995-96 to $32.4 billion in 2001-02, which is a 30 per cent growth. The member for Cowper would recognise that this is also very important in his electorate. These are not just manufactured goods that are going directly into markets; they are also manufactured goods that are going into industries that are building and developing in Australia because we are selling other products.The member for Cowper and I had the opportunity recently of participating in a celebration in Coffs Harbour of local company WE Smith Hudson exporting from New South Wales to Western Australia four 200-tonne heat exchanges to build the fourth train of the LNG project in the North West Shelf. As a result of the North West Shelf getting the $25 billion gas deal up with China, there is a chance that they might build a fifth train, and WE Smith Hudson, in the member for Cowper's electorate, might get more contracts to build more heat exchanges and sustain the 106 jobs in that business.We as a government have been putting in place not just trade policies that focus on growth but also an economic framework that is very conducive to and competitive for Australia's manufacturing industries. One of the other standout industries, as far as our exports are concerned, is the motor vehicle industry. Motor vehicle exports during the reporting period have risen to $2.9 billion. That is for fully built motor vehicles. If you add automotive components to that, exports from the auto sector are now worth over $5 billion. That industry employs over 54,000 people in Australia. They are forecasting that between now and 2010 they will grow their export base to $10 billion. As I indicated, the policies of our government have seen expansion in the export sector, significant growth in terms of our output and, therefore, increased jobs. During the life of our government—since 1996—there have been a million new jobs created in our economy. Almost 200,000 of those are in the export sector, as a result of the growth in Australian exports. So it is a good news report. I will table it so that members can peruse the statistics it contains. On our side of the House, we are focusing on generating jobs in Australia for all Australians. We would ask the members of the Australian Labor Party to focus on doing the same thing so that they are not just focusing on one job—his job—but on jobs for all Australians, for real Australians outside. That is what we have been focusing on: jobs in the member for Cowper's electorate.987715:05:009877Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. It again refers to ethanol and to comments that both you and the Treasurer have reiterated today—that the government will not set a 10 per cent ethanol limit on petrol until it gets advice from Environment Australia. Prime Minister, doesn't Environment Australia, in its coordination comments to memorandum JH02/0315, considered by cabinet on 10 September 2002, say `EA'—Environment Australia— `supports conclusion 5(h) to set a 10 per cent cap on the maximum level of ethanol'?9877Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In the time between the previous question that the Leader of the Opposition asked me and the question he has now asked me, I have been provided with a copy of my answer on 19 September. The memorandum referred to was of course in relation to the sugar industry. Nothing that I said a moment ago in answer to the other question countermands anything that is contained in that answer. But, once again, the Leader of the Opposition misses the point. The answers given by the Treasurer and by others over a period of time, and again today, and the answers given by me indicate that Environment Australia have been commissioned to do a study on this issue.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What about their recommendations?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. The Prime Minister is responding.ZD4Mr HOWARD—When that study has been received, we will then have available to us their considered view. But if the Leader of the Opposition equates a coordination comment in a cabinet memorandum with the results of a considered study, we now have further evidence as to why he sits over there.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Can I remind all members that in a number of instances through question time today, and perhaps most starkly in the last question and answer, the use of the word `you' when the question and answer are both directed through the chair is an inappropriate use. In fact, the chair is not involved in any way in the way the question is framed or the answer is given.987715:08:009877Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Can the minister update the House on the latest information about the whole of government approach in Indigenous affairs in his area of Cape York in Northern Queensland? What new initiatives are there that will help Indigenous people on the Cape?9877Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question. I know he has a great deal of concern for doing the right thing by Indigenous people in North Queensland, as does the member for Leichhardt, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Let me remind the House of something that was said late last year by Noel Pearson:Almost all of our other social and health problems are derivative of our grog and drug problem: we solve grog and drugs, we will solve everything else, or at least be on our way to solving them.There has been so much focus on Indigenous problems that it is only right and proper that we should also appreciate and recognise Indigenous success. I am very pleased to tell the House that the people of Arakun, which is the largest Indigenous community on Cape York, have made a decisive step towards reclaiming responsibility for the community and reclaiming responsibility for their own lives. The people of Arakun have used the powers available to them under Queensland law to have alcohol banned from that community except for certain limited hours of service in the local tavern. Alcohol is being banned from private homes, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, because there cannot be one rule for permanent residents and another rule for people there on employment contracts. Pregnant women and their partners, people on probation, people subject to domestic violence orders and people whose children are truant from the local school will all be refused alcohol service. I have to point out that it is one thing to make this decision, but it is another thing to make it work. It is not going to be easy to cope with the sly grog runners who will inevitably try to penetrate the community. It will not necessarily be easy to cope with a reduction in community income because of lower alcohol sales. This is a giant step towards tackling one of the greatest social scourges that Indigenous communities face. Less alcohol abuse means better health. It means more tranquil communities. It means stronger family budgets. It has important spin-offs for employment and education. One of the best things about what has happened in Arakun is that it is not something which governments have imposed on Indigenous people. This is a genuine example of grassroots leadership. This is an example of Indigenous people taking responsibility for their own lives. I think it is only right that this House congratulates Noel Pearson, the Cape York Partnership and the Arakun Council, but, most of all, the women of the Arakun community justice group, who are responsible for the leadership behind this important breakthrough.987815:11:009878McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, now that we have established that you have received advice from the ACCC that it needs a limit on ethanol before it can act, that you have received advice from AFFA that a 10 per cent cap should be introduced at least on an interim basis, that Environment Australia, on which you rely, has advised of its support for a 10 per cent limit, that all motor vehicle manufacturers express concern that warranties are in jeopardy due to petrol with more than 10 per cent ethanol and that motorists may be voiding their warranties without their knowledge, why will you not introduce—at least on an interim basis—a 10 per cent limit on ethanol pending the receipt of future reports? Why will you not ensure that motorists are advised of the extent of ethanol in the petrol they are buying?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Before I call the Treasurer, can I point out to the member for Fraser that even in that context it would have been better to have referred to the Treasurer rather than use the term `you'.9878Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—It is because you have established no such thing. After asking a number of questions and drawing blanks—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Drawing blanks.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, drawing blanks. He then gets up and says, `Now that we've done this and we've done that and that, what about this?' What has come out of these questions essentially is this: there is a scientific argument and, in order for that scientific argument to be worked through, Environment Australia, the responsible agency, has been asked to consider the scientific evidence. After Environment Australia considers the scientific evidence—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Let the motorists suffer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—its minister is responsible for making a recommendation to the cabinet, and after the responsible minister brings it to the cabinet—5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser is warned!CT4Mr COSTELLO—the cabinet makes a decision and, after the cabinet makes a decision, it makes an announcement with a view to implementing that decision. He then says in his question, `Why don't you make a decision before you've gone through the scientific process? Why don't you do it on an interim basis?' The reason we do not do these things on an interim basis is that it might be wrong. Normally, one gets the scientific evidence before one makes the decision. 4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—What about the 2½ thousand for my constituent?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Banks!CT4Mr COSTELLO—One of the reasons the taxpayer funds organisations like Environment Australia to do scientific research is so that it informs the government. I have always found it good practice, when dealing with a scientific issue, to get the scientific report first, rather than make the decision and then ask for the report afterwards. That is essentially what scientific method is all about: one actually goes and considers the empirical evidence, one comes to the conclusion, one makes a recommendation and a decision is made. That is the proper process for government. That is the process this government will follow. The government will make its decision on the basis of the scientific research, and any suggestion by the Labor Party to the contrary is absolutely false. We had those false accusations put before us back in September. They were false then. They are false now. The government is following due process and the government will make its decision accordingly.987915:16:009879Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Can the minister inform the House about the coalition government's commitment to providing quality child care? What is being done to ensure children using child care are safe, particularly in outside school hours care?9879Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I would like to thank the member for Mitchell. He is a longstanding member of this parliament and he has a very keen interest in work and family issues, particularly the welfare of children. As he well knows, the coalition's record when it comes to child care is exemplary. We have committed $8 billion over the next four years, and we know that over the last six years we have spent 70 per cent more than Labor did in their last six years of government. We have a direct interest in, and great concern about, the area of quality and regulation. I think all parents, for their peace of mind, want to be reassured when they leave their child in a Commonwealth funded child-care facility that adequate quality assurance and regulations are in place. When it comes to licensing and regulation, they are clearly the area of the states and territories. Along with our record allocation in the area of outside school hours care, we are interested to see quality assurance—just as we have done in long day care recently, when tougher provisions came in, and family day care as well—to ensure that maximum quality is maintained in Commonwealth funded outside school hours care.I must admit that I was concerned by some statements in the Daily Telegraph today. I know that the member for Mitchell, after meeting many providers in his electorate not so long ago, was concerned about the role the states and territories have in licensing and regulation. They do have that jurisdiction and they do have those responsibilities. These are regulations regarding the qualifications of staff, staff-child ratios and of course the physical environment. I compliment the ACT government because they were the first territory to introduce regulations for outside school hours care. We want to see other states bringing forward regulations. Queensland will do it and Western Australia will do it, but I was quite surprised to read about New South Wales in the paper today. I quote from a leading paper, the Daily Telegraph, where it says:Tens of thousands of NSW school children attend unregulated after-school care centres where no one checks staff numbers or safety and suitability of buildings. ... ... ...After-school care providers have been campaigning for regulation for more than a decade as they want parents to have confidence in the sector. That is fair enough. It continues:But the State Government has refused to pay the $17 million to set up a regulatory system, despite having the responsibility to oversee long day care.Community Services Minister Carmel Tebutt's spokesman said it was the Federal Government's responsibility to regulate child care.That is clearly not the case. We do not have the responsibility to regulate child care, particularly outside school hours care. It is high time some state governments stopped cost shifting to the Commonwealth. In the area of early childhood care, particularly preschools, there has been no funding increase in the state of New South Wales for over a decade. Indeed, they now have a lower amount of funding for preschools than any other state. To a large extent, the only checks and balances they are interested in when it comes to after school hours care is the cheque that is coming from the Commonwealth through child-care benefit. They are more interested in the bottom line than they are in the quality of care. There is no doubt that we have played our part. There has been a 221 per cent increase in outside school hours care. I want to introduce quality assurance programs for outside school hours care next year, but the states must introduce regulations as a matter of urgency and not try to pretend it is a Commonwealth responsibility or cost shift to the Commonwealth.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous988015:20:009880Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I seek leave to correct a comment I made during indulgence last Thursday in reference to the New South Wales bushfires.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister may proceed.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I said:The House would be aware of the shared funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states regarding both the transportation and operating costs of the three helitankers I should have said both the transportation and leasing costs of the three helitankers. The arrangement with respect to the helitankers is that the Commonwealth is meeting half of the direct leasing costs—a cost burden, I might say, never before undertaken by a Commonwealth government—and half of the transportation costs associated with getting them to Australia and back, and the New South Wales and Victorian governments are meeting half. As to the day-to-day operational costs, the states are meeting all of those costs on their own. Therefore, the reference should have been to both the transportation and leasing costs of the three helitankers which, I might add, are making a remarkable contribution to the firefighting effort in New South Wales. I am delighted that we were able to reach an arrangement to share the direct leasing costs and the transportation costs to bring the aircraft from America early in the fire season. As a result of that they have been particularly valuable.Questions Without Notice9880988015:22:009880Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—by leave—Last week, I was asked a number of questions imbued with assertions of impropriety against the former defence minister, Mr Reith. The Prime Minister has made a number of comments in relation to these assertions and I do not intend to reiterate them.However, I will make the following comments in regards to DIDS savings. The $80 million in savings referred to by the member for Chifley in his question represent savings against the current DIDS costs. What the member for Chifley did not acknowledge in his question is that this represents savings of around $290 million against the original baseline for the project, which is a saving of over 27 per cent. This is well in line with the original savings targets quoted by the member for Chifley.Further, as the attack on Mr Reith continued last week the member for Isaacs asked me about alleged cost blow-outs for the new heavyweight torpedoes. The government approved phase 2 of the acquisition of replacement torpedoes for the Collins class in July 2001 at a cost of $263 million. Despite the uninformed assertions made by the member for Isaacs, I am advised that the expected total cost of the torpedo has not changed in real terms since the commencement of the heavyweight torpedo project in the mid-1990s. Personal Explanations988115:24:009881Mr LINDSAY,MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?HK6Mr LINDSAY,MPMr LINDSAY—Yes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.HK6Mr LINDSAY,MPMr LINDSAY—From time to time I am referred to as the member for Lindsay. In an article in the Australian this morning Glenn Milne made the comment that the seat of Lindsay was based around Townsville. The seat of Herbert, which is my seat, is based around Townsville.Questions to the Speaker98819881988115:24:009881Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I have two questions for you, Mr Speaker. You were in the House when the member for Wannon tabled the report From phantom to force in August 2000. It is now some 800 days since that occurred. Could you confirm whether or not this report is now the longest outstanding since 1996 that is yet to be responded to?My second question to you concerns the use of parliamentary language. Earlier in question time you took action against the member for McMillan. Having checked the Hansard record it appears that the word `moron' has been used by a number of members in Hansard and also the words `Kings School' have also been used by a number of members in Hansard. Could you—or, if not, other members—assist me about the future use of those words?9881SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I simply remind the member for Chifley of standing order 75, which states:No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member thereof, against any member of the Judiciary, or against any statute unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal. Standing order 77 says:When any offensive or disorderly words are used, whether by a Member who is addressing the Chair or by a Member who is present, the Speaker shall intervene.Standing order 78 says:When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to words used, he or she shall determine whether or not they are offensive or disorderly. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—What if they are intended as a compliment?10000The SPEAKER—I warn the member for Watson! I did not believe that anything that was said by the member for McMillan did anything to elevate the standards in the House and I took appropriate action. I could have taken much more severe action, as the member for Chifley is aware.Miscellaneous988115:27:009881Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—On indulgence, Mr Speaker, as you may know there was a basketball game at lunchtime today played between some Labor women and some women from the Liberal-National parties. We were raising money for the drought. We raised about $2,000 to help families who we all know are doing it tough.I will take this opportunity to thank Jackie Kelly and the women from the Liberal-National parties who came out and took up our challenge to have this match to show that we in the parliament are doing something practical and enthusiastic to raise money. I thank all of the team members from the Labor Party as well. Along with Jackie, I also thank the Capitals. Both sides had team members from the Capitals, which actually meant that we had a basketball game. They played extremely well. I encourage everyone to go along and watch a game where the Capitals are playing. There will be buckets that people can put money into at each of the Capitals' games, and all of that money will go to Farmhand and the drought.I finish by thanking Telopea Park Primary School. They made their basketball court available to us. All the kids came along and barracked. The great news at the end was that after a very close match it was raining, so all I can say is that I hope it continues to rain where it is needed. 15:29:009882Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister10—On indulgence, I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the challenge. When she threw down the challenge we rose to it. Among the females on this side we have some great regional members in Kay Hull and Sussan Ley, who came to the fore. Sussan showed excellent skills and actually shot some baskets. My husband promised to donate $100 to Farmhand for every basket I shot. I only managed to shoot one. He obviously thought his money was safe.We had some great supporters from amongst our members: Teresa Gambaro, Chris Gallus and Sharman Stone, who also did an excellent job in yelling from the sidelines. Various knee and back problems let the others down. We also had some staff who helped us out. Probably the opposition did better than us in terms of fielding members but we made it up with some very keen staff in Verity Williams, Kristie Down, Sonia Mills, Aileen Shannon, Rebecca McLaughlin and Tania Stewart, who did a good job for us. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question from the member for Paterson today, outlined a number of measures the government is taking to assist rural communities suffering the effects of the drought, but this was a charitable match to raise money for our rural women and the Farmhand appeal. The funds are coming from the pockets of the members of this House. So thank you to the opposition for the challenge and thank you to all the women on this side of the House who also participated.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I point out to the House that by any standards this was an unusual but not inappropriate use of indulgence. Given the drought appeal and the festive season, I thought most members of the House would be prepared to accommodate it. However, I would not want it to be a precedent for the future use of indulgence. Business988215:31:009882Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPLeader of the House10—by leave—I move:That:(a) the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 2.30 p.m., and(b) so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the routine of business for the sitting tomorrow, being as follows, unless otherwise ordered:(1) Questions without notice (at 2.30 p.m.).(2) Presentation of papers.(3) Ministerial statements, by leave.(4) Matter of public importance.(5) Notices and orders of the day, government business.Question agreed to.988210000The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:98821188T483NMr Laurie Ferguson;Ms HallTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the following issues to the attention of the House:· The Howard Government is determined to sell Telstra even though submissions to it's own inquiry, the Estens Inquiry, overwhelmingly show that services are still inadequate.· These submissions also reflect widespread concern that services will decline further if the rest of Telstra is sold.· The Greens, Democrats and Independents may make deals with the Liberal Government to allow the sale to go ahead, despite increasing community opposition to the sale.· A fully privatised Telstra will focus on profits not people; shareholders will be more important than customers.· Services will suffer under a fully privatised Telstra, particularly in outer metropolitan, rural and regional Australia.We therefore pray that the House oppose the Liberal/National plan to sell Telstra and that all Greens, Democrats and Independents join Labor in opposing the sale of Telstra.60Mr Laurie Ferguson8T4Mr Laurie Ferguson (from 60 citizens) and58Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 58 citizens).988312883NPG6Ms Hall;Ms MacklinTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:· That increases to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in the 2002 budget will hit those that can least afford it, families and pensioners.· That this Government should remember the commitments made before the 2001 election in regard to the cost of prescription drugs.We therefore pray that the House oppose the Howard-Costello plan to increase the cost of prescription drugs for Australians.20Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 20 citizens) and108Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin (from 108 citizens).9883339XH4WU5Mr McGauran;Mr Gavan O'ConnorTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament.The petition of certain general pension, superannuant/part government pension, citizens of Australia, draws the attention of the House that in view of the difficult circumstances that such citizens are experiencing with their reducing quality of life due to a burgeoning cost of living created by the GST, there exists an urgent need to upgrade the pension.Notwithstanding periodic increases to the pension and other once only, much qualified gratuities, we strongly contend that the basic formula for the pension is a source of hardship in that it has been set-too `low even for normal circumstances. and in comparison to many European pension, let alone in the current climate of increased prices, fees and premiums in Australia.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House act to increase the Base Formula of the Pension to equal 35 % of the Adult Male Average Weekly Earnings (AMAWE).22Mr McGauranXH4Mr McGauran (from 22 citizens) and317Mr Gavan O'ConnorWU5Mr Gavan O'Connor (from 317 citizens).988323783M2V5Ms Plibersek;Mr SwanTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain general pensioner, superannuant and self-funded retiree citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House that in view of the difficult circumstances that such citizens are experiencing with their reducing quality of life due to a burgeoning cost of living created by the GST, there exists an urgent need to upgrade the pension.Notwithstanding periodic increases to the pension and other once only, much qualified gratuities, we strongly contend that the basic formula for the pension is a source of hardship in that it has been set too low even for normal circumstances and in comparison to many European pensions, let alone in the current climate of increased prices, fees and premiums in Australia.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House act to increase the base formula of the pension to equal 35 per cent of the Adult Male Average Weekly Earnings (AMAWE). Your petitioners also pray that the House act to extend pensioner concessions, particularly to superannuants and retirees who are asset rich but whom possess low finances.53Ms Plibersek83MMs Plibersek (from 53 citizens) and184Mr Swan2V5Mr Swan (from 184 citizens).98837PG6Ms MacklinTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at the Glen Park Gospel Mission, Eltham North 3095, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.7Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin (from seven citizens).98847A8WMr PearceTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at St Andrews Anglican Church, Rowville, 3178, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.7Mr PearceA8WMr Pearce (from seven citizens).9884573EZ5Mr AbbottTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that we are concerned at the destruction of human embryos by scientists extracting embryonic stem cells and concerned at proposals by scientists to clone human embryos for the purpose of extracting embryonic stem cells.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will:1. Oppose the creation of embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells and any other scientific purpose (therapeutic cloning);2. Oppose the use of already existing embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells and any other scientific purpose;3. Support, encourage and fund scientific research using adult stem cells from all sources including umbilical cord blood.573Mr AbbottEZ5Mr Abbott (from 573 citizens).988485KL6Mr AndrenTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the widespread concern and disquiet held by many Australians with the possibility of a US led attack on Iraq and Australia's involvement in such an action.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:· use its influence to dissuade the US Government from the threat of precipitating military action in Iraq;· refrain from all support of such threats;· continue with diplomatic efforts to reach a resolution of the problems of the region; and· work through the United Nations, as the duly constituted international body, for building a secure basis for world peace.85Mr AndrenKL6Mr Andren (from 85 citizens).98841789WF6Mr DanbyTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the citizens of Australia note that the practice of suicide bombing is a crime against humanity. This crime and its participants, organisers and supporters are guilty of a crime which has been committed against innocent civilians.Further, we the undersigned note that there is no moral, religious or political justification for this crime.Your petitioners, declare therefore, that the perpetrators of these crimes should be prosecuted and punished by the appropriate international courts of justice.We the citizens of Australia call on the House to act immediately to facilitate a debate at the next United Nations conference to declare clearly and unequivocally, that the practice of suicide bombings is a crime against humanity.1789Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 1,789 citizens).98849483VDr EmersonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain electors in the state of Queensland draws to the attention of the House that a Medicare office is not located in the western suburbs of Logan City.In the main, these signatories are from residents of the suburbs of Logan, the northern suburbs of Beaudesert Shire and the southern suburbs of Brisbane.This area has been consistently recognised in consecutive censuses as being amongst the highest population growth areas in the country. This area contains a large percentage of young families who have indicated that a Medicare Office in the area is important to them. In addition, the residents of this region have indicated that the office should be located in the Grand Plaza Shopping Centre which is a major regional centre and is the hub of retail, community and social interaction for the western suburbs of Logan City Council, together with the residents and signatories to the petition, believes it to be an ideal location for the establishment of this desperately required service.Your petitioners therefore request the House and, in particular, the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator the Hon Kay Patterson, to carefully consider establishing a Medicare Office in the western suburbs of Logan, preferably in the shopping centre precinct known as Grand Plaza.94Dr Emerson83VDr Emerson (from 94 citizens).98852167383XMr GibbonsTo the Honourable Mr Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents in the state of Victoria, and particularly of Bendigo and other townships along the Calder Highway corridor, draws to the attention of the House that the delay in completion of the duplication of the Calder Highway through to Bendigo has continued for an unjustifiable amount of time. For the benefit of our children, our families and our community, the work to complete the duplication of the Calder Highway, a Road of National Importance, is urgent and crucial to prevent further death and serious injury.Further, the delay in the duplication of the Highway is hindering regional and rural economic development and employment in Bendigo, and other townships along the Calder Highway corridor.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the necessary funds to complete the duplication of the Highway are made available, so that the duplication of the Calder Highway from Melbourne to Bendigo will be completed by 2006.21673Mr Gibbons83XMr Gibbons (from 21,673 citizens).98851483NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government take action to preserve bulkbilling and to strengthen the Medicare system.The cessation of bulkbilling by many general practitioners as a direct result of government policy has caused great hardship to many local residents on low incomes particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives introduce legislation to ensure that bulkbilling is preserved and that our Medicare system is strengthened.14Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 14 citizens).9885763483OMrs HullTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the maternity wing of Calvary Hospital Wagga is under a real threat of closure due to the difficulties faced by obstetricians maintaining Medical Indemnity Insurance. The outcome would result in `no choice' for women in this region to have access to private obstetric care.The undersigned petitioners therefore ask the House of Representatives to provide assistance and solutions to make obstetric practice viable for the future of the Maternity Wing of Calvary Hospital Wagga Wagga.7634Mrs Hull83OMrs Hull (from 7,634 citizens).98851220IK6Mr LloydTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the state of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House the Medical Indemnity Insurance issue. Your petitioners therefore request the House to:1. Develop a medical accident and compensation scheme that will see patients' problems dealt with outside the courts.2. Establish a National Accident Scheme to cover all injured patients.3. Develop a standard procedure for settling claims rather than the present case by case system.4. Develop a nationally coordinated system whereby the legal procedures are consistent across all states and territories of Australia.5. Develop a way of resolving disputes without having to go through the legal system.6. Prevent legal practitioners from advertising `no win no fee' arrangements. 7. Set a period of three years in which a claim can be made.1220Mr LloydIK6Mr Lloyd (from 1,220 citizens).98863478JK6Mr McClellandTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Federal Government has approved a grant of $5 million to fund a facility in Churchill, Victoria, for the breeding of laboratory monkeys to be used in research.The billions of dollars invested annually in animal research would be put to much more efficient, effective and humane use if redirected to clinical and epidemiological research and public health programs.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:1. Rescind the grant to fund the building of a facility for the breeding of monkeys which will be harmed or killed in the course of research.2. Instead provide funding for the development and utilisation of research techniques which do not use animals at any stage.3478Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland (from 3,478 citizens).9886272KV5Mr NevilleTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia, on behalf of namely all of the registered firearm owners and members of registered pistol and combination shooting clubs `Western Action' in all of the states and territories of Australia draw to the attention of the House that the petitioners object strongly to the proposed new firearms legislation.Your petitioners therefore request the House to urgently consider rescinding the proposal to have removed from legal and registered pistol shooters their legally obtained registered firearms.272Mr NevilleKV5Mr Neville (from 272 citizens).98861459V5Mr PyneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The following citizens of Australia remind the House that the Murray-Darling Basin faces an environmental crisis unless major changes to its management are introduced.Your petitioners therefore request Parliament to support a referendum to delete Section 100 of the constitution that gives the states `the reasonable use of the waters or rivers for conservation for irrigation.' In its place a new head of power should be inserted under Section 51 handing control of the basin to the Commonwealth.145Mr Pyne9V5Mr Pyne (from 145 citizens).98869952V5Mr SwanTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain electors of Australia draws the attention of the House to the Howard Government's failure to address issues surrounding the lack of a Medicare Office on Bribie Island.We call on the Federal Government to provide adequate services to the people of Bribie Island, many of whom are elderly and cannot travel to other areas.As Bribie Island is one of the fastest growing areas on Queensland, the Federal Government has an obligation to meet the needs of both the elderly and families by supplying funding to adequately meet the needs of our growing community.Your petitioners therefore request the House to address these issues and provide a Medicare Office on Bribie Island.995Mr Swan2V5Mr Swan (from 995 citizens).9886429SU5Mr VaileTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The Management Committee, Children, Parents, Staff and concerned community members associated with Snugglepot Day Care Centre Inc., Myall Avenue, Taree, a 17 year community based, non-profit Child Care Service offering high quality affordable care for a total of 169 places per day 51 weeks each year to children aged between birth and 15 years, in the city of Greater Taree and Manning region, in the federal electorate of Lyne in New South Wales points out to the House:The urgent need of a review of The Child Care Disadvantaged Area Subsidy (DAS) for both community based regional and rural Long Day Care (LDC) and Out of School Hours Care Services (OOSH), so that e.g. DAS for OOSH services is not based on attendance numbers but on local need and service provision, including local income levels et cetera and that all DAS criteria are the same for LDC and OOSH for cohesiveness, effectiveness, clarity and equity. We petitioners ask the House to urgently fund Disadvantaged Area Subsidy to all five components of Snugglepot Day Care Centre Inc. We operate as one service and must be funded as such. Without DAS our service will not be able to remain both viable and open. We are a `stand alone' community based Child Care Service not set up with an asset base to utilise in challenging times. We are the only such service in our area. Such a service is a fundamental expectation and right of this community. Without Snugglepot Day Care there will be no Benchmark centre, no Outside School Hours Care and no community based child care service. It would also be a 17 year waste of government resources and taxpayers money.429Mr VaileSU5Mr Vaile (from 429 citizens).988761300AMTMs VamvakinouTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. We the undersigned Australian citizens:· Recognise the important role that supported employment plays in the lives of people with disabilities.· Expresses concern on budget proposals to tighten eligibility for the disability support pension on the basis of increasing to 30 from 15 hours per week a person's capability to work.· Recognises the growing community concern on the measures in Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002.Your petitioners ask that the House of Representatives should ensure the bill does not negatively impact on people with a disability currently in supported employment.613Ms Vamvakinou00AMTMs Vamvakinou (from 613 citizens).Petitions received.Private Members' Business9887988715:32:009887Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the service and bravery of all Australian veterans involved with the Z Special 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 recognise only 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.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I will second the motion—00AMXJohnson, Michael, MPMr Johnson—Mr Speaker, I am delighted to second the motion and reserve my right to speak. IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYD—I know that there are many members on both sides of this House who are keen to second this motion, and I thank them for their support, particularly the member for Swan, Mr Wilkie, who initially was very keen to speak on this motion. Originally, I made representations to Senator Richard Alston in July of this year on behalf of a constituent of mine, a gentleman whom I know very well, Mr Horrie Young. Mr Young is one of only two survivors from Operation Jaywick. He had requested my assistance in getting Australia Post to issue a commemorative stamp for the 60th anniversary of Operation Jaywick, which will occur on 26 and 27 September next year.The response that I got from Senator Alston and Australia Post was supportive but in many ways disappointing. Australia Post advised that they receive many requests each year from members of the public, associations, institutions and government departments requesting specific subjects for stamp issues. They said that they could only satisfy a very small number of these requests and that they had developed a set of criteria against which potential stamp subjects were assessed. In commemorating anniversaries, these must be of 50 years or multiples of 50 years. As such, Australia Post said, they regretted that they were unable to assist Mr Young on this occasion.I do understand Australia Post's dilemma, but this operation is of great significance in the history of Australia. The 60th anniversary of this operation is important. It is a sad fact of life that there are only two survivors left from Operation Jaywick. If we are forced to wait until another significant anniversary—whether it is 70 or 75 years—there may be no survivors from Operation Jaywick left. It would be appropriate if this very significant military operation were commemorated. Australia Post does have a wide range of commemorative stamp issues. At the time that the request was rejected for Operation Jaywick, Australia Post issued a commemorative issue for `Champions of the Turf', highlighting five brilliant race horses—Wakeful, Rising Fast, Manikato, Might and Power, and Sunline. I know the racing industry is a great industry and those horses were famous within the industry—and I am not begrudging the issue of that stamp series—but it shows that we can have a whole range of stamps issued for commemorative purposes.Operation Jaywick and the voyage of the Krait stands as one of the most daring Australian operations of World War II. In early September 1943, the small wooden ship set sail from Exmouth Gulf in Western Australia, carrying 11 Australian Navy and Army personnel and four British personnel. Among them, of course, was leading telegraphist Horrie Young, RAN. Without being detected, the Krait successfully reached an island only 11 kilometres south of Singapore. On 26 September, the commandos used collapsible rubber and canvas canoes to paddle into Singapore's Keppel Harbour. Under the cover of darkness, they attached limpet mines to Japanese merchant vessels before escaping undetected. On the morning of 27 September, the mines exploded, sinking seven ships and striking a major blow against the enemy's supply lines. After resting, the successful raiders then, quite amazingly, paddled another 80 kilometres to rendezvous with the Krait and sail back to Australia. This was an incredible feat of arms by such a small force and worthy of Australia's proud wartime history. It was one of the most amazing feats in World War II.I appeal to Australia Post to look once again at the possibility of issuing a stamp to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Operation Jaywick and, as part of it, the Z Special Unit Association and the Z Special Unit forces. I know that Mr Horrie Young, his family and all the families of those people who served in Operation Jaywick would greatly appreciate it if Australia Post could, for once, set aside their criteria to only allow the commemoration of anniversaries of 50 years or multiples of 50 years.15:41:009888Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I am sorry I was a little slow on my feet earlier to second this proposition—I was momentarily distracted. I was to second the proposition on behalf of Mr Kim Wilkie, the member for Swan. The history of the Krait and the Z Special Unit force, of course, resonates very much in the minds of Western Australians, and I know it is a matter that has interested Mr Wilkie for a very long time. He would have dearly loved to have been here to put his point of view forward in support of the proposition that has been raised on the other side of the House by Mr Lloyd.I would agree completely with the proposition that Australia Post could stretch a point and abandon from time to time its celebration of 50th anniversaries to recognise truly significant events in national history and keep the commemoration before the Australian people on a more regular basis. It is worthwhile doing it in this particular case because the engagement of those brave men involved in Operation Jaywick and more generally involved with the special forces—Z Special Unit and other elements of the special forces—in World War II draws our attention in a timely fashion to the critical nature of the strategic significance of the islands to our north, and do so at a point in time when we ought to be thinking about that perhaps a little more deeply that we have in recent years.There was a time in our nation's history where we—or powers friendly to us—did not control our immediate approaches, and the pressure on Australia was truly massive. An atmosphere of fear, threat and concern existed within this country as we confronted the consequences of a powerful imperial nation thrusting south. We learned then all about the consequences of our nation finding itself cut off or potentially cut off from our main sources of support and we learned all about the significance of the maritime sea routes through the South-East Asian archipelago. Many Australians paid with their lives securing or trying to return control of those areas into friendly hands. It was always an inspiration to me as a youngster to see year after year at the Anzac Day parades in Western Australia those who participated in Z Special Unit force operations marching proudly. They were always notable because they included that prominent, effervescent, courageous Chinese-Australian, Jack Sue, who always had a prominent role in the marches at that time. He was always an object of some admiration by the Western Australians who watched those marches, and many of them learned the history of this important part of our contribution to World War II by following up in queries in schools and in the public what it was that this proud little band had done that caused them to be such a unique little part of an Anzac Day march.Most of the veterans of Operation Jaywick died the year afterwards when a similar effort was made which was unsuccessful. Operation Jaywick saw the sinking of some 37,000 tonnes of Japanese shipping in Singapore Harbour and was a real punch in the eye for the Japanese at that time who had assumed themselves invulnerable at sea. Subsequently, the operation was not so successful. In conclusion, I should include the Japanese record of the court proceedings, the evaluation of the enemy of those brave men. It states:With such fine determination they infiltrated into the Japanese area. We did not hesitate to call them real heroes of a forlorn hope. It has been fortunate for us that their intention was frustrated half-way, but when we fathom their intention and share their feelings we cannot but spare a tear for them. The valorous spirit of these men reminds us of the daring enterprise of our heroes of the Naval Special Attack Corps who died in May 1942, in their attack on Sydney Harbour. The same admiration and respect that the Australian Government, headed by the Premier of all of the Australian people, showed to those heroes of ours we must return to these heroes in our presence. When the deed is so heroic, its sublime spirit must be respected, and its success or failure becomes a secondary matter.15:46:009889Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—I am delighted to support the motion moved by the Chief Government Whip, the member for Robertson, on Operation Jaywick. I share in his disappointment that Australia Post have declined to accept his overtures for the issue of a special commemorative stamp to acknowledge the 60th anniversary of Operation Jaywick in September next year.Firstly and pre-eminently, I acknowledge the service and bravery of those young Australians so many years ago who played a great part in the defence of our country and took part in a very daring operation. Much to my surprise, a number of Ryan residents who are very heavily involved in the subbranches of the RSLs have flagged this matter with me previously. I am delighted to speak on this motion and to lend my weight to encouraging Australia Post to make an exception to their rules and to acknowledge the 60th anniversary of Operation Jaywick next year.A number of people in the gallery following question time may not know the complete history of Operation Jaywick and the voyage of the Krait. After my speech I hope that they will be ambassadors for this country, as this is a small part of history we should be very proud of.The Krait was a former Japanese fishing boat captured during the Malayan campaign and it sailed to Australia following the fall of Singapore and the loss of the Netherlands East Indies during 1942. It was acquired by the allies. Major Ivan Lyon, a British officer who had escaped from Singapore in 1942, hit upon the idea of using this Japanese vessel to mount a commando raid upon Japanese shipping in Singapore. In early September 1943, the small wooden ship set sail from Exmouth Gulf in Western Australia carrying 11 Australian Navy and Army personnel and four British personnel. It is important to acknowledge that the Operation Jaywick raiding party also included three British personnel. I will not name names of all the Australians who played a part in that daring raid, but I salute Mr Horace Young, a constituent of the member for Robertson. As a young Australian and as one of the youngest members of this parliament, I salute his contribution to our country's defence so many years ago. Operation Jaywick is commemorated not only at the Australian War Memorial, where the ship's log of the Krait is part of the national collection, but also at the Australian National Maritime Museum in Sydney, where the Krait is on display, in honour of the courage and daring of those who sailed her. This operation has the distinction of being the longest seaborne commando attack on enemy forces in World War II. The Krait is credited with being directly involved in the destruction of more enemy ships in a single engagement than any other Australian naval vessel.As the member for Robertson has said, he has made representations to Australia Post to honour these brave young Australians when they represented our country in warfare. Regrettably, he was advised that he did not satisfy the criteria against which potential stamp subjects were assessed in order to commemorate such events. I am very disappointed and call upon Australia Post to reconsider their position. Australia Post advise that only anniversaries of 50 years or multiples of 50 years will be considered and that they can only satisfy a small number of requests by members of the public to celebrate and commemorate important events or incidents in our country. It makes sense to some extent but, clearly, as the member for Robertson has said, the racing industry has been acknowledged. Surely, by any measure or criteria, the racing industry falls way short of the bravery of these young Australians so many years ago. They played a part in the defence of our country and upheld the values, traditions and the freedoms that we so cherish today.I take this opportunity in the House of Representatives, together with my senior colleague and Chief Government Whip, the member for Robertson, to remind Australia Post that commemorative stamps pay tribute to great Australians for the work they did in order to give us the values and freedoms that we have. I strongly urge Australia Post to reconsider. (Time expired)15:51:009890Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—The heroism, courage and humility of our veterans are well acknowledged and renowned at home and internationally. From Gallipoli to Vietnam and more recently in peacekeeping and efforts in East Timor and Afghanistan, our troops have always punched well above their weight and have gone not in the name of war but always, I believe, in the hope for peace. Australians can be very proud of our men and women who risked everything. Many paid with their lives for the freedom that we enjoy today.During World War II a unit was formed called the Z Special Unit. This unit is often mistakenly referred to as `Z force'. The purpose of this unit was simple: to infiltrate enemy strongholds in enemy territory—dangerous work in any circumstance and sometimes suicidal in nature. This unit was the best trained of our forces, having trained in night and day exercises, commando style raids and expeditions over land and water. So legendary was this Australian special unit that a film was made in the 1990s about their activities and their missions. Anyone who saw the film will understand just how dangerous their missions were. In particular, the film focused on one mission: Operation Jaywick.While Z Special Unit may have been legendary, they were also extremely secret. So secret were the activities of the Z force that even today little is known of the detail and the men who served during its 182 missions. This was a force of true multiculturalism even before the concept had been invented—and I will talk about the multiculturalism aspect in a moment. The 60th anniversary of Operation Jaywick—the most famous of the missions undertaken—is 26 September 2003. Z Special Unit carried out two raids against enemy shipping in the Japanese-occupied harbour of Singapore. Operation Jaywick was considered at the time to be a suicide mission. The idea of destroying Japanese shipping in Singapore harbour was bold and had the potential to deliver a huge physical as well as a psychological blow to the Japanese forces. So successful was the attack that it resulted in 38,000 tonnes of enemy ships being destroyed. Operation Jaywick was carried out by 10 Australians and four British servicemen who struck at the heart of the Japanese supply line to New Guinea. An interesting fact in relation to the multiculturalism that I referred to is that these highly dedicated veterans were from many backgrounds. While most were Australian, they also included British, New Zealanders, French, Malay, Canadian, Americans, Indonesians and Chinese. Operation Jaywick enlisted the HMAS Krait—a small fishing boat which travelled some 5,000 miles through enemy infested waters to get to Singapore. The MV Krait was originally known as the Kofuku Maru and had originally belonged to a Japanese fishing firm out of Singapore. During its service history, the MV Krait was used in rescue missions going to the aid of sunken ships along the east coast of Sumatra, and during its service transported more than 1,100 people. Interestingly, the MV Krait was originally restored in 1964 and was being used for training and recreation purposes by the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol. The MV Krait is now part of the Australian War Memorial's collection and is currently on loan to the Australian National Maritime Museum in Sydney, which is a fitting resting place for a vessel that, along with its crew, served Australia so well.With less than a year before the 60th anniversary of Operation Jaywick in September 2003, the motion before the House seeks to have Australia Post recognise the efforts of the Z Special Unit. This is a worthy request and one that should be considered by Australia Post. Australia Post has a great tradition of celebrating through special edition stamps the achievements of men and women of Australia. It appears that this policy is somehow restricted to a 50-year anniversary only. I have contacted Australia Post and through my office queried the practice and the possibility of a commemorative special stamp series to celebrate Operation Jaywick. I have been told that this is not possible. I simply do not accept that this so-called 50-year unwritten policy is not flexible enough to include other special times in our history that do not fall neatly within the bounds of Australia Post's rules. I urge Australia Post, through this motion, to examine the issue of commemorative stamps and the possibility of including a special edition next year to coincide with the anniversary of Operation Jaywick.I believe this is an appropriate use of resources and a proper way to celebrate the bravery and service of our veterans. I urge Australia Post to reconsider and to allow for the printing of this special edition. It is something worth while and, as the policy, I am told, is not a written policy, I believe it would easily fall into the category of flexibility and that they could make this stamp happen. (Time expired)15:56:009891Ticehurst, Kenneth, MPMr TICEHURST00ANFDobellLP10—I would like to support my fellow Central Coast member for Robertson in his move to acknowledge the dedicated service and extreme bravery of all Australian veterans involved with the Z Special Unit forces, including those involved in Operation Jaywick in World War II. I can think of no better time to stand with him and the member for Ryan to commemorate the deeds of these brave Australian soldiers, because Australia is again facing a grave threat to our national security. Unlike World War II, this time the enemy is an invisible one, but we still require the same Australian fighting spirit to defend our shores against this impending terror. We again need to harness the same strength of purpose and to draw on the selfless courage that so typified the men involved with Operation Jaywick who sailed aboard the Krait almost 60 years ago.What better time would there be to commemorate their bravery in the face of the enemy than now? What better time would there be to remind Australians that we must stand together, as they did so bravely in the face of their enemy? Above all, what better time would there be to use such a fine example as theirs to draw us all together, to remind us that our heritage is sacred and that our multiracial culture must be woven into one united Australian spirit if we are to truly commemorate the selfless, courageous actions of all who took part in Operation Jaywick and to ensure that the sacrifice they and others have made throughout our history was worth while and justified? I salute Able Seaman Mostyn Berryman, Seaman Kevin Cain, Lieutenant Edward Carse and Corporal Andrew Crilly. I salute Able Seaman Walter Falls, Seaman Andrew Huston and Seaman Arthur Jones. I salute Seaman Frederick Marsh, Leading Stocker James McDowell, Lieutenant Robert Page and, last but not least—someone who used to reside in my own electorate of Dobell on the Central Coast but who now lives in Robertson—Leading Telegraphist Horace Young. These men were the bravest, many were Australian, and they gave no thought to their own safety as they mounted a commando raid upon Japanese shipping in Singapore's Keppel Harbour and, under the cover of darkness, attached limpet mines to Japanese ships without being detected before escaping. Ultimately, they sank seven ships. It was an incredible feat by such a small force and is most worthy of commemoration.Their actions were typical of so many brave wartime acts which we must never allow ourselves to forget. They typify the bravery of so many Australians and others throughout our history whose efforts and sacrifices have made Australia the country it is today. Yes, I support the member for Robertson's motion to acknowledge their deeds—we should all support that move—and I support his motion for Australia Post to recognise the 60th anniversary of Operation Jaywick. A stamp of recognition is the absolute least that we can do. Why? Because, if nothing else, Australia needs to be reminded of real heroes now more than ever. Australia Post should really review its 50-year rule for celebrations. This is a most worthy cause and it deserves all our support.16:00:009892Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—This is not the first time that an appeal has been made for some fairness and real recognition for those involved in Operation Jaywick. It is interesting that Prime Minister John Curtin wrote via the Acting Governor-General to try and get justice for a couple of the people involved in Operation Jaywick. I am greatly indebted to Peter Thomson and Robert Macklin for their book Kill the Tiger—an epic Australian war story of bravery and betrayal. This book deals mainly with Operation Rimau, the second operation after Operation Jaywick. A letter on Operation Jaywick from John Curtin, written in September 1944, marked `Top Secret' and addressed to the Acting Governor-General, states:With reference to the communication of Lord Gowrie on 22 May 1944 advising that the bestowal of the Distinguished Service Order on Major Ivan Lyon, the Military Cross on Lieutenant R.C. Page and the Military Medal on Corporals A. Crilley and R.G. Morris have been approved, it will no doubt have come to Your Excellency's knowledge that for certain reasons the promulgation of these awards was suspended pending further investigations.In the light of information which has since been made available concerning the operation in which these four persons were engaged, it would appear that recognition of a higher standard would be justified in the first two cases, namely Lyon and Page, and I should be obliged if Your Excellency would kindly seek His Majesty's consent for the cancellation of the Distinguished Service Order and Military Cross approved in these cases.I consider that the services rendered by Major Lyon would be more appropriately recognised by the bestowal on him of the Victoria Cross for great valour and devotion to duty in most hazardous undertakings and that the Distinguished Service Order would be more fitting in Lieutenant Page's case for gallantry, skill and devotion to duty in most hazardous undertakings and I recommend accordingly.An additional reason for the proposed change in Page's case is that the services rendered by him were similar and equivalent to those rendered by Lieutenant D.K.N. Davidson RNVR, who has already received the Distinguished Service Order on the recommendations of the United Kingdom authorities.That letter was signed by John Curtin. According to the book Kill the Tiger:Curtin recommended Ivan Lyon for the highest valour award in the British Empire—the Victoria Cross—for the Jaywick raid but, we can reveal, the old boy network in London turned it down.We know that there have been a number of injustices with military awards over the years and we have seen a number of them brought to the attention of the House, notably the case of Teddy Sheean, raised by my friend the member for Braddon, Sid Sidebottom. Some of us cannot understand why John Simpson Kirkpatrick never received a VC. Many on Operation Jaywick were not content with what they did on that first strike for freedom so they went back again in Operation Rimau. Of course, none of them survived. If John Curtin could make an appeal to what was then, unfortunately, a higher authority, then surely we can appeal to Australia Post to review this nonsensical decision. If it were not for the courage and the sacrifice of the men and women of the Australian defence forces who went on operations such as Jaywick and Rimau, we would not be sitting here today in a free, open parliament in one of the greatest democracies in the world. Australia Post might see things a bit differently but, in my view, they do owe commemoration to these people. The decision not to allow this is a bureaucratic one taken by boffins. It is about time they had a good look at themselves. They should have a look at the terms of this motion. It is being dealt with in a very bipartisan way and, like the mover of the motion, I call on Australia Post to review that decision and commemorate the deserving men of Jaywick.10000Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.989316:05:009893Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I 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.In recent years we have seen inquiries into two areas of institutionalised care of children. We have seen the report of the Senate inquiry into child migration and we have seen the report on the stolen generation. Those inquiries have given us an insight into the misguided treatment of children in care and have revealed the long-term harmful effects of that care. But one stone remains to be turned. Institutionalised care was not restricted to migrant or Indigenous children. Tens of thousands of Australian-born children were raised in institutions and children's homes. They were not always orphaned; many were abandoned by parents unable to cope or were removed from their homes by authorities. They spent a great part of their formative years in religious or state run institutions. Now many of those who were placed in care in decades past have emerged to face the reality of their early years and assess its impact on their adult lives.To support each other, to share their experiences of their years in children's homes and to seek support and understanding, they have formed networks such as the Care Leavers of Australia Network, whose badge I am proud to stand here and wear today. Their stories have much in common. They tell of being denied love and affection. They tell of being separated from their siblings as part of a deliberate policy to manage their care. They tell of lack of privacy and dignity and of harsh discipline. There are many reports of physical and sexual abuse. There are also stories of kindness and at times misguided compassion, but even at its most benign institutional care made for a hollow childhood. As one of the home children, now in his fifties, says:We were threatened and belittled, there were no bedtime stories, no birthdays, no special occasions. Even Santa Claus abandoned us.Such things are an important part of family life, but managing care in segregated dormitories meant having deliberate policies to erase awareness of biological parents and family. Institutions also had low expectations of those in their care. One articulate and forceful advocate of this issue found her file showed her as `slow but not mentally retarded'. For many of the home children, this became a self-fulfilling prophesy. They were conditioned to perform manual work, and higher education was rarely even considered. Leonie Sheedy, who is in the gallery today, was one of the home children. Her story gives us some insight into their lives both during and after their years in children's homes. Leonie was made a state ward of Victoria in 1957, at the age of three. She spent the next 13 years at Saint Catherine's Children's Home in Geelong. Leonie has had little or no contact with her eight brothers and sisters over the years. Her reflections in later life sum up the thoughts and feelings of many thousands of home children. She says:Being a parentless person is a most difficult thing. I feel like a second-class member of the community. I feel different, I have no sense of belonging to a long line of extended relatives. My personal feelings on being a state ward are a deep sense of sadness and grief about a loss that is difficult to explain, a loss that is not recognised by the community, let alone governments or agencies, a loss that is different to that of the death of a parent. For state wards there is no mourning. This loss is compounded by a lack of written material to assist people to validate their feelings and emotions and a lack of support services for former state wards.The situation of former state wards was acknowledged in a letter from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's Chris Sidoti, who commented:The responsibility of the state towards these human beings continues beyond the period during which they are in care. Since the state undertook responsibility for them as children it must continue to exercise its responsibilities when they are adults.It is time for governments 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.10000Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Is the motion seconded?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:11:009894Tollner, David, MPMr TOLLNER00AN4SolomonLP10—At first sight, this motion on institutionalised children seems a worthy contribution to the cause of increasing public awareness of past wrongdoings perpetuated by the three highest estates of our land—the church, the government and the judiciary. These are the very authorities we are taught to believe will protect us from injustice, and all thinking Australians would be appalled at past practices that failed to ensure that children were protected from abuse and would agree, generally, that children should not be separated from their families. But the all inclusive wording of this motion is so broad brush that it detracts from the worthy sentiment of the motion. Not all institutionalised children suffered these deprivations. Not all institutional workers were sadists and paedophiles and it did not all stop in the mid-1970s. Reports inform us daily that individuals in whom we place our trust—teachers, churchmen, doctors, politicians and, indeed, parents—abuse that trust and prey upon the young. It concerns me that the member for Fowler, although undoubtedly well intentioned, has moved a motion that, through its wording, consigns such horrors to the past and isolates the evils to institutionalised care.Members would have received a copy of a handbook on Australian crime from the Australian Institute of Criminology recently. Unavoidably, I must quote selectively from it, but that should not detract from the message. In 2001, there were 16,744 reported victims of sexual assault—a seven per cent rise on the previous year. One in four sexual assaults are perpetrated by a family member, 63 per cent by people known to the victim. Most sexual assaults take place in private residences. Other statistics show that more than 150,000 violent assaults happened in 2001, that males are increasingly likely to be victims of violent assault and that these assaults occur, again, mostly in private residences. Statistically, therefore, there is great danger today—and probably for all time—in allowing children to remain at home in the company of family members. Statistically, children would be far better off in institutions. Clearly that is a nonsense, just as it is a nonsense to avoid going to bed because that is where most of us die. I do not mean to belittle this motion, but I wonder at its inspiration. In the past few years there have been seemingly limitless apologies issued by national and regional governments, churches and others for past wrongdoings. Parliamentary debates are littered with expressions of sorrow and regret. There is no doubt about this government's commitment to tackling issues of child abuse and exploitation inside and outside Australia, whether by signing international treaties or providing the financial means for young people to leave care and make the transition to independence directly, through the Youth Allowance and special programs such as Reconnect. There are payments available, providing special family support and much better foster care arrangements for children who need care outside their family. Funding of $3.7 million has been provided over three years for a new travel fund, family tracing and counselling services; and funding towards memorials to recognise former child migrants in the Australian community has also been provided.Few Australians today are unaware of the past abuse of children through migrant schemes, through assimilation policies and through institutional care, but there are still people who want to pick over these past sins through royal commissions and other inquiries. We may learn from the past, but we would be better employed looking to the needs of children today—the abused, the assaulted, the victims of drunken and irresponsible parenting, and the boys and girls growing up in communities where suicide is endemic, where sexual abuse is prevalent and covered up and where adults today conspire to prevent the exposure of rape, incest and family breakdown. In some cases, by claiming some kind of cultural exclusiveness, the perpetrators of these terrible crimes go unpunished. I neither support nor oppose this motion, but I feel that the imperative in this House should be primarily about the future of Australia. It is easy to bemoan the past and, by so doing, to acquit ourselves of the responsibilities of today.16:16:009895Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I commend the member for Fowler for bringing this motion before the House of Representatives. She has shown great compassion and consideration for institutionalised children who have now grown into adults. I am very disappointed with the contribution that has been made by the member for Solomon. He says that he neither supports nor opposes the motion. You would have to ask why he was speaking on it. This matter has deep compassion and conviction for people who formerly were state wards. We do need to learn from the past. That should guide our actions for the future. If the member for Solomon has concern about sexual abuse and other problems being inflicted on children today, he should take action by bringing similar motions before the House of Representatives so that we can debate them here in the Australian parliament. I am very disappointed that he has found fault in this motion. In fact, at one point he misrepresented the motion. Let me read its first clause:That this House:(1) acknowledges the ongoing effects of emotional deprivation suffered by children placed in institutions prior to the mid 1970's . . .It does not talk about all children, but it sensibly recognises the problem that some children, some state wards, have experienced as they have grown into adults. We should recognise this problem. We should congratulate the Care Leavers of Australia Network, CLAN, for its work in providing support, in having a heart and in showing compassion to fellow citizens. CLAN has 320 members around Australia. It has been going for 2½ years. It is a fine support group for former state wards. They are not asking for compensation, but they are asking for recognition. They are not asking for compensation, but they are asking for full disclosure of the facts, full disclosure of what took place in state homes decades ago. They are also asking for counselling assistance and services, and they are asking for fair treatment from, and consideration by, government.It is true that we have had a lot of public debate about the stolen generation, and rightly so. I await the day when the Australian government says sorry. It is true that we have had a lot of public debate about, and consideration of, the British child migrants. So too we should have debate on, and consideration for, children who were institutionalised, children who were the victims of unsatisfactory practices in state homes and who have now grown into adults. The member for Solomon would not wish that treatment upon his own children. Why is he so heartless to those children who have now grown into adults and simply want some recognition, encouragement and counselling? We all value our family lives. I believe passionately that every day spent together with family is truly a great day. So too we should have compassion for those who have not enjoyed the love of their parents. The love of parents and the love of siblings are the bonds and nourishment that set us up to cope with adult life. The sad truth is that those denied that nourishment and those bonds have difficulties. I pay tribute not only to the member for Fowler but also to Senator Andrew Murray, who has been raising this matter on behalf of CLAN in the Senate. I would like to quote some of his words: Last century it is estimated that 250,000 children were institutionalised in Australia. Through examining this population when older, I would not be exaggerating by stating that 10 years of abuse will often lead to 50 or 60 years of problems . . . The ability to create and maintain satisfying relationships, the capacity for effective parenting, the capability to undertake work, and one's sense of identity, are all fundamentally damaged. Adult lives are plagued with unemployment and welfare dependency, dysfunctional and failed relationships, homelessness and substance abuse, crime and prostitution, and even suicide.Andrew Murray has done the right thing in the Senate; the member for Fowler is doing the right thing here in the House. These are not problems that can be trivialised. These are not problems that can be swept under the carpet. These are not problems that can be rationalised by saying, `Something just as bad is happening today.' This parliament should be against badness. This parliament should be against problems, whether they happened in the distant past or happen today or in the future. We should be against the things that have gone wrong in our society, and we should try to help people who want to solve these problems and make a better world for the future.CLAN is about that work. It recognises in particular the loss of educational opportunities for institutionalised children. How can we correct that? We should be giving people a second chance in the education system, offering adult and community education courses and opportunities to former state wards. We should help these people with counselling services and, most importantly, government should release the facts. Information costs nothing but, for the people involved, information can be a great source of comfort and a great source for understanding the past and living a better life in the future. This is a good motion. It should not be criticised and it should not be trivialised in any shape or form. For the 250,000 children who were institutionalised in this country, it is a motion of burning importance and significance and should have the support of parliament on both sides of the chamber. (Time expired)16:21:009896Hartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER00AMMCowperNP10—The issues which have been raised in the motion before the House acknowledge some of the circumstances which relate to those children who were institutionalised prior to the 1970s. I am sure that the events which have been detailed relating to many children who were placed in institutional care prior to that period have attracted the sympathy and empathy of members from both sides of the parliament. That is why, for instance, I commend the work carried out by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee which, under the second term of the Howard coalition government, released the report Lost innocents: righting the record. This report specifically looked into the child migration schemes which existed in the last century. The report paid particular attention to the child migration scheme which operated out of England.I have received a personal insight into the handling of child migrants from a constituent of mine who was a child migrant to Australia. I have met Don Coleshills on a number of occasions and have received a first-hand insight into the child migration scheme that operated in the 1930s and 1940s. Mr Coleshills was in foster care in England when at the age of five he was enrolled into the British child migration scheme. He and two of his brothers had been given up for adoption by their mother. Mr Coleshills actually lived with one of his brothers in foster care without knowing that the child he used to play with was in fact his brother. While a family adopted Mr Coleshills's brother, Mr Coleshills became part of the British child migrant scheme and was transported by ship in 1937. He was sent to a farm school in Bacchus Marsh, where, as he details to me, he was put to work. Some years later he was transferred to Fairbridge Farm School in Molong. Mr Coleshills's recollections of those days paint an environment which was indeed punishing for the children. The children were made to work long hours on farms, without shoes on their feet and with minimal clothing. Discipline on the farm was harsh and public disciplining common, with a pecking order amongst the children which meant that the youngest and the weakest suffered at the hands of older, stronger children. For a six-year-old, this must have been a very tough environment indeed. There was little or no formal schooling, and food was in short supply. We must remember that we are talking about a period when Australia was involved in the Second World War, and many of our resources were focused on conquering the enemy. At this time, Mr Coleshills was incorrectly told that he was an orphan and that he did not have any living relatives. He was deprived of the basic support and love that epitomises the values which we hold so dear in today's society.Despite such difficult circumstances, Mr Coleshills secured a job in the kitchen of the farm school in Molong, and at the age of 12 he took over cooking the meals for 125 child migrants and 25 staff at the institution. A few years later, this experience helped him to gain a cooking apprenticeship at a hotel in Temora. He went on to cook for shearers and forge a successful life, which included becoming the shire president of Phillip Island. But despite his success in life, Mr Coleshills experienced tremendous grief, insecurity and emptiness because of his separation from his family and the environment in which he was placed on his arrival in Australia. He told me of his loneliness, his inability to trust people, the scars from his time at the farm school and his lack of identity. Not knowing who he was and where he had come from left a tremendous emptiness in his life.To some extent, those emotions have been partly reconciled through the assistance of the Fairbridge Foundation and a friend who was a historian. Over time, they revealed that in fact he was not an orphan and that he had eight brothers and a sister living in England. Collectively, they have over 80 siblings. In recent years, Mr Coleshills made three trips to Great Britain since he established that he had family over there. He discovered that his father, who was a policeman, and his mother had both remarried and had children. He even found the unmarked grave of his mother. But returning to England was a very emotional experience. The years of wondering who he was and how he belonged were now accompanied by tremendous insecurity about how he would be received by his relations in England. Not all of his brothers accepted who he was and made an effort for a reunion with Mr Coleshills. Mr Coleshills described the experience as `like walking on eggshells'.Mr Coleshills today is the vice-president of the child migrant association and, despite his pain, acknowledges that the government has gone some way to addressing the issues which confront the association's members right across Australia. While it is true that we cannot change history, it is important that we acknowledge the concerns of child migrants and look forward with some practical support and assistance. To that end I welcome the additional commitment which this government has made with regard to the child migrant scheme. As the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Gary Hardgrave, announced earlier this year, a package of $3.7 million will allow a number of measures to be implemented to assist child migrants. The essential element in this issue is that we continue to look forward. Rather than dwell on the difficulties of the past, it is important that we look to the future and take a positive outlook with regard to people who were in this situation. 16:26:009898Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I am indeed pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to this private member's motion brought forward by the member for Fowler on institutionalised children. I want to congratulate her for doing so. Given the debate that has already ensued, I want to draw particular attention to paragraphs (3) and (4) of the motion, which I think some members on the other side have missed. They are:(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 . . . I refer to those paragraphs because I strongly disagree with the sentiments of the member for Solomon. The member for Cowper, who just spoke, concentrated primarily on migrant children—which is a legitimate subject but not the subject of this motion. What we are actually speaking about here are children who, in the period leading up to the seventies, were made wards of the state, for example, and then, as a result of their circumstances, thrown into institutions. Paragraphs (3) and (4) of this motion clearly describe the sort of atmosphere, future and existence that they had during that time. That is what we are really talking about here today.The group CLAN, the Care Leavers of Australia Network, has been formed—primarily with the hard work of Leonie Sheedy and Joanna Penglase—to try and bring attention to the issue. I thank them for it. I am one of probably millions of typical Australians who have not really thought about this before. We have heard about the British migrant children's experience and we have heard about the stolen generation's experience—both have been debated at length. I agree with my colleagues who spoke previously that the day the apology comes will be a good one. I have to confess quite openly that I had not spent the time to think seriously about what had happened to the category of children we are speaking about on this motion today.I had the pleasure a few weeks ago of meeting Leonie and Joanna. They paid me a visit here in Canberra, and we sat and talked for an hour or more about what they are actually about. They told me about the sort of work they are doing, the sort of recognition they are looking for and the sorts of issues that they and their colleagues in CLAN are facing, as well as all those hundreds and thousands of other people out there who have similar backgrounds. I really puzzle over how anyone could object to, or be critical of, this motion because it is really saying: `Can we just think about this for a minute? Can we carefully consider the sorts of needs these people have, built upon the past that they have come from and built upon the fact that other categories of people have in fact had some attention drawn to them?' That has probably encouraged the formation of CLAN in recent years. According to the CLAN background paper:Church or charitable Homes and institutions, however, in this era were the most common form of out-of-home care for children without viable family. Public inquiries such as the one which resulted in Queensland's 1999 Forde Report have shown that residential care all too often involved high levels of sexual, physical and emotional abuse. What is less well known is that the policies and practices that were characteristic of the management of residential Homes in this earlier time resulted in children feeling completely abandoned and emotionally neglected, cut off from both family and community ties ... Much has been done up until now about addressing similar needs for children who were adopted out, where there was no connection between their current family situations and their past, and I applaud that. We are asking for the government to similarly consider that there are a number of people out there who have lost that background, who have that lack of connection, and they are no less important than other categories of people for whom we have done some work as a community. Both of these women from CLAN said to me, as the shadow minister for ageing: `Many of these children are now starting to move up through the baby boomer generation into their older years. When they get to that point and they have additional needs, it might be useful if we know that this background actually exists for them as well.' I really want to enforce and support the motion before the House. (Time expired)16:31:009899Dutton, Peter, MPMr DUTTON00AKIDicksonLP10—It is clearly evident that all levels of government have a moral responsibility to ensure that our children are adequately protected from abuse and emotional trauma, and I acknowledge the contributions already made by the member for Solomon and the member for Cowper in particular in relation to this debate on institutionalised children. This responsibility especially exists where the children are under the care of the state. Even though child protection is a state and territory responsibility, the Commonwealth government is concerned about abuse of children in care and the long-term devastating impact that such incidents have on the quality of life of children. Another aspect that causes severe emotional turmoil is where a child grows up without knowing, or is separated from, their parents. Even though it may be necessary for children to be cared for outside the family, I share the member for Fowler's concern that there is a need to encourage children to maintain a connection with their families in appropriate circumstances. I also recognise that a percentage of children brought up as state wards, foster children and children of the child migration scheme in the early 1930s to 1960s received inadequate treatment while they were in care. The government has taken a number of positive steps to address the issues of child abuse in state care. These policies have focused on prevention and early intervention strategies, such as the implementation of the Australian Council for Children and Parenting, the National Child Protection Clearing House, early intervention parenting projects, Youth Allowance, youth activity services and family liaison workers. The Commonwealth, in conjunction with the states, has also agreed to work towards a national plan for foster care and children that will aim to enhance the support services available for Australia's 17,000 children in foster care and their foster families.It has been suggested previously that the government should hold a royal commission into the abuse of children in care. Generally, however, a broad national inquiry would be unlikely to provide comprehensive benefits or enhance the government's capacity to address these issues effectively in the future. Nevertheless, the government continues to play a key role in designing new initiatives that help prevent child abuse and neglect and that support parents in their parenting role. Children are a special part of our Australian society and are a special part of the electorate of Dickson. Dickson is a vibrant and energetic community comprising many young and happy families. All of the children that I have met in my electorate—whether young students at the All Saints Catholic School and Preschool at Albany Creek or senior students at Northpine Christian College—have fostered a love of learning and a love of life. Unfortunately, though, this is not always the case. Part of my role in this place is to represent the people of Dickson on a number of committees. One of the most beneficial committees that I have been a part of during this parliament is the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. The terms of reference of that committee have seen us investigating the vast problem of both illicit and licit drugs within our society, and in particular the effects those drugs have on young people and the social effects and other effects they have on our community. Once that committee has handed down its report on the current inquiry, we will be investigating ways to improve the health and wellbeing of children. The outcome of that inquiry will be of great benefit to the families in Dickson and across the country. The inquiry will focus on examining ways to enhance parenting capacity and develop child and family friendly communities—communities that are safe. This is what is important to the people of Australia. The issue must also be looked at in terms of the capacity of our community to assist in decreasing the trend of increased criminal activity, particularly by young offenders. Better families mean better children, and better children mean less youth related criminal activity. Not all children are potential criminals but for the minority who have that potential we must do what we can to remove them from such a vulnerable position. I know that the people of Dickson will wholeheartedly support any step taken to help reduce crime, particularly crimes committed by our youth. I am proud of my fellow Dickson residents for the interest they have always demonstrated when given an opportunity to improve our community, and I ask them to be a part of this process and contribute to the work of this committee by making submissions and suggestions and helping the elected representatives to understand the issues involved at the grassroots level. In particular, the committee will look at what is needed to strengthen family relationships, parenting skills and confidence, and the committee will determine what services for children and parents are lacking and the ways all tiers of government can help. 10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for private members' business has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 104A. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate9900Question proposed:That grievances be noted.990016:37:009900Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—During the time that is available to me in this grievance debate, I want to address the issue of disability services, particularly in relation to people with disabilities who work. I received a copy of a letter from Mr Alan Chapman, one of my constituents, which touches on an issue that many families who have a child with a disability would experience. I want to read the letter that he wrote to the Prime Minister. He said:Dear Prime MinisterSome weeks ago The Weekend Australian ran a feature on companies that had received the Prime Minister's Award for taking a pro-active role in employing people with disabilities. I'm sure you are proud to be associated with the recognition given to these companies. You will no doubt be aware that the Commonwealth's Disability Pension is means tested and those people with a disability and fortunate enough to be able to hold down full-time employment therefore receive no Federal or State Government assistance whatsoever. Let me repeat that statement. They receive NOTHING. I am sure you will also be aware that people with disabilities more often than not incur additional living expenses that are directly related to their disability. For example, my son Nicholas has limited mobility and although he is able to work full-time, he can only do so provided he is able to use his car for travel to and from work. Attached is a summary of my son's circumstances, together with the grounds under which he intends to lodge a claim for work-related expenses with the Australian Taxation Office. This information has previously been provided to your Treasurer and Minister for Family and Community Services.This may cause some difficulty for your Government, as a successful claim (including a claim for tax overpaid in previous years) could have significant implications for your Government's Budget. I have no idea how many disabled people there are in similar circumstances to my son, but if my son's claim is successful and others then make a claim the amount involved could be substantial. It is grossly unfair and probably discriminatory that a disabled person working full-time is unable to claim as a tax expense those work-related costs associated with their disability. The probable discriminatory aspect of this issue is also being reviewed under current Equal Opportunities legislation and may be the subject of a separate claim under that legislation. This is not a grab for Commonwealth dollars for the sake of seeking a windfall and the intention to reduce the claim by the amount of avoided public transport charges will reinforce that position. It is a genuine attempt to get the rules changed for people with disabilities. Pursuing this claim through the Australian Taxation Office will, I hope, get everyone's attention focussed on this issue.I would welcome and appreciate any comments you may have on this matter. Yours sincerelyAlan ChapmanAttached to the letter to the Prime Minister is a page entitled `Background to Proposed Claim'. I want to run through it, as Mr Chapman has provided it to me. He says:Nicholas is 27 years old and has cerebral palsy. He works full time and will soon move into his own apartment as a further step towards fully independent living. However, as a result of means testing he receives no Commonwealth or State Government assistance whatsoever even though his disability causes additional work related expenditure that a non-disabled person would not incur.The following therefore describes the basis on which he intends to claim work related expenses as a tax expense.1. Tradesmen are entitled to claim the cost of tools as a work related expense. The principle would appear to be no tools, no work and no work means no income. And no income means no tax income. There is also an “equalisation” principle involved as well. For example, a tradesman spending $2,000 on tools and earning $30,000 per year would only have $28,000 income, but would still be taxed on the full $30,000. This would be unfair, as an individual not required to provide their own tools and earning the same $30,000 would retain the full amount as income.2. Individuals are also entitled to claim travel to their principal place of business as a work related expense, where they are required to transport bulky items or equipment in order to be able to carry out their work.3. Finally, an individual attending a work-related further education course is able to claim the cost of the course and travel as a work related expense. This benefits the individual and the Commonwealth, since maintaining or improving an individual's employment prospects means ongoing and (hopefully) higher income, which, in turn, means ongoing or higher tax income.Nicholas' disability means a significant additional cost (amongst others) incurred in maintaining his ability to keep working is the need to drive to work, as alternative means of transport are beyond his limited mobility. As a result, it is intended to claim the cost of travel to and from work as a work-related expense. The logic behind this has already been recognised by the Australian Taxation Office in the three examples above, namely:· No tools, no work. In this case driving his car to work is the “tool” that enables Nicholas to carry out his employment. And the same income equalisation principle applies as well.· He is required to carry a bulky (ie. difficult to manoeuvre on public transport) item to his principal place of business. The difficult to manoeuvre item is himself!· Like self-education expenses, being able to maintain his employment means ongoing income for him and ongoing tax income for the Commonwealth.The method of calculating the claim is yet to be determined and will establish if the appropriate method is the ATO's mileage allowance or depreciation method. However, it is intended that the claim will be LESS the cost of public transport as this is a cost my son would have had to pay, if it was not for his disability. It is also intended to lodge a claim for previous tax years.This letter has gone to the Prime Minister. Copies have been sent to the Treasurer; the Hon. Senator Nick Minchin, the Minister for Finance and Administration; Senator Amanda Vanstone, the Minister for Family and Community Services; and me, as his local member. I do not necessarily agree with everything that Mr Chapman has had to say, but I recognise and understand the issues he raises. I recognise them because, as a person with a disability, I know that what he says is true. Perhaps I should declare a pecuniary interest here, but I will not be claiming any of my disability related costs as a tax deduction. But for Mr Chapman and so many people like him this is a real issue.One of the things that a person with a disability has throughout life is increased costs in a whole range of areas. For instance, many people who have to buy a car need to buy an automatic because that is the only way to effectively fit in a hand control. That is an additional cost. A lot of people with disabilities cannot buy clothes off the peg. Often they have to have clothes tailored. This applies to shoes as well. There are so many areas in which people with disabilities face extra costs, and this places an extra burden on them or their families. The point is that, while we might not agree with everything that Mr Chapman has said, he made a number of good points. We should be doing everything in our power to provide incentives for, and assistance to, those people with disabilities who can work to go out and work. It is not just a matter of finance, income or paying taxes; it has a heck of a lot to do with self-esteem. I know a number of people who have a range of disabilities. Some of the people I know who work have very severe disabilities. They require assistance to get to the workplace. They cannot drive, and they require help. Often that help has to come from families or from other volunteer carers. Interestingly enough, when some of these people get into the workplace, providing that it is accessible, they can do a full day's work and are very productive employees. I ask the Prime Minister and others who have been put on this list to have a good look at this letter. Even if they do not agree with the issues, I hope they will at least give a positive response to Mr Chapman and to the many people with disabilities who are finding it difficult to retain a place in the workplace because of costs, as well as to those who are very keen to get into the workplace.990216:46:009902Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—I rise to speak on behalf of a mate and a constituent, Dr Geoffrey Vaughan, former Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Monash University, former head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, currently Chair of the Cooperative Research Centres Committee and a member of the Industry Research and Development Board. Dr Vaughan believes that his reputation, honesty and integrity have been unfairly attacked. His letter to me of 19 November reads:Dear Bob,Senator Boswell launched an unwarranted attack on my reputation in the Senate on Tuesday 12 November 2002. I refer you to the Senate Hansard and the Second Reading Debate on Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002.Senator Boswell attacks me with statements which are completely false and without foundation. He has attacked my reputation, honesty and integrity.I have enclosed copies of two letters I have sent to the President of the Senate to clear my name from impropriety and to restore my reputation. I should like you as my local MP to do everything possible to clear my name and right the injustice which has been done.I would also appreciate receiving advice from you as to what further actions I can take to clear this matter from the public record.Yours sincerely,(Dr) Geoffrey VaughanHis letter to the President of the Senate, the Hon. Paul Calvert, dated 13 November 2002, reads:Dear President Calvert,I have noted from Hansard, 12 November 2002, that Senator Boswell has raised “serious questions of conflict of interest” in relation to my membership, as Chair, of the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Committee and as a member of the Industry Research and Development (IR&D) Board. Senator Boswell has implied impropriety in relation to my activities on these bodies. He has linked the conflict of interest to my position as a Director of BresaGen Limited and a perceived association with Professor Alan Trounson.I should like to bring to your attention the following matters:· The activities of the CRC Committee are under continuous review of a probity auditor appointed by the Commonwealth. The committee considers matters of conflict of interest as a key agenda item at every meeting of the committee.· I have declared my directorships, all shareholdings, and all other areas of potential conflict to the Department of Education, Science and Training (and to the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources in the case of the IR&D Board) and this information is held on the appropriate Departmental registers.· The CRC Committee is a committee of advice to the Minister for Science. The Committee does not make direct grants to applicants, through its terms of reference it only gives advice to the Minister who is responsible for all funding decisions.· The CRC Committee has never received an application for funding involving BresaGen Limited.· Senator Boswell has stated that “Vaughan was also appointed to the industry R&D board that subsequently gave Vaughan's own company, BresaGen, a grant of $4.9 million to find a stem cell therapy cure for Parkinson's”. The facts are that BresaGen was awarded a START Grant in May 2000 and I was appointed to the Board in September 2000. · Whenever any matter related to BresaGen is discussed at the IR&D Board my conflict is declared by me in advance and I remove myself from the meeting. I do not receive any related agenda papers, I do not participate in any discussion, I am not involved in any way in any decision making, and I do not receive the minutes of the particular agenda item.· Senator Boswell has linked me to Professor Trounson because I held the position of Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Monash University. I resigned from Monash more than 10 years ago. Since that time I have held Australian Government and industry appointments.· Senator Boswell has linked my name in the debate to other people he has identified, namely Peter Jonson, Alan Trounson, and Bob Moses. I have never had any personal commercial interests or dealings with any of these people.I would be pleased if you would copy this letter to members of the Senate and have it included in the official record.Yours sincerely,(Dr) Geoffrey VaughanA final letter, again to the President of the Senate, the Hon. Paul Calvert, dated 19 November, reads:Dear President Calvert,When I wrote to you on 13 November 2002 I was receiving medical treatment which resulted in surgery on 15 November. Because of this, my letter had been written somewhat in haste and should have included further information. I should now like to bring this information to your attention in the hope that my reputation can be restored following Senator Boswell's attack on me in the Debate on 12 November 2002 related to the Research Involving Embryos Bill.Further to the information previously submitted I should like to make the following additional comments:· The START grant awarded to the “Trounson company” Copyrat was made under delegation by the Biological Committee of the IR&D Board. I am not a member of that Committee and played no role whatsoever in any part of the process.· It is implied that I was associated with the Biotechnology Innovation Fund (BIF) award to the “Trounson company” IngenKO through my membership of the IR&D Board. Again, the Board delegated, through its legislated powers, the full operation and allocation of BIF awards to the Biological Committee of the Board. I am not a member of the Biological Committee and thus played no part in the award of any grant to IngenKO, nor indeed in any other award or grant of BIF Funds.· I have never been involved with the funding bodies responsible for the award of the Biotechnology Centre of Excellence, Major National Research Facilities, ARC or NHMRC grants.The implications that I have abused a conflict of interest because of my role on the CRC Committee, as a member of the IR&D Board, as a Director of BresaGen Limited, or in my previous role of Deputy-Vice Chancellor of Monash University are without foundation and are an unwarranted attack on my reputation, honesty and integrity.I would again be pleased if this letter could be copied to all members of the Senate and again I ask that this additional information be included in the official record.I will attest to the integrity, honesty and reputation of Dr Vaughan. I have known him for many years. I worked with him closely when we worked together with two Labor governments—a state Labor government and the federal Labor government—in order to establish a new campus of Monash University in Berwick in my electorate. He is a fine gentleman. I hope this helps to clear his name. I thank the House.990316:54:009903Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity today to rise and speak on a subject of immense importance to Australia's future—the operation of our higher education system. Whilst I am pleased to have this opportunity, I am distressed that there is a need to raise my concern. It is my genuine hope that our university systems are managed by all governments in a manner that is beyond criticism and beyond reproach. Unfortunately, that is not the situation under the current minister and the current government. Staff, students and intuitions have lost, and lost badly, under this government. This loss and neglect of our higher education system is occurring at a time when we have a greater reliance on education than ever before. Our economic health and, indeed, our social health as a nation depend on our ability to educate ourselves, to educate ourselves continually, and, more importantly, to educate our children. As we recently celebrated 30 years since the election of the Whitlam government, I was moved to reflect upon my own family's ability to have gone to university because of the measures that were introduced. If the Whitlam government had not made those sorts of changes, five members of my family would have had no hope of ever affording a university education at one of the fine institutions in my electorate of Chisholm—Monash University. I am blessed with having two higher education institutions within my electorate: Monash University at Clayton and the city campus of Deakin University at Burwood. These institutions make an invaluable contribution to the education of both younger and older Victorians and to the communities in which they are located. But these institutions are not receiving the support from this government to enable them to maintain the diversity and quality of educational experiences they wish to deliver.Responses from the minister to questions that I placed on notice earlier this year make interesting reading. These figures show that at Deakin University in 1994 there were 12,705 HECS funded undergraduate places and in 2001 there were 13,372 places. This is an increase of 5.25 per cent in non fee paying undergraduate places over eight years. At the same time, the number of domestic full fee paying undergraduates has increased by nearly 300 per cent since the introduction of full fee paying places in 1998. Figures on Monash University are very similar: a 2.4 per cent increase in HECS places and a massive increase in full fee paying places of 317 per cent. That is for domestic places. This is a stark reminder of the increasing unfairness of the policies of the current government in relation to higher education. The huge proportional increases in the number of full fee paying students give an advantage to those who are financially able to pay up front and disadvantage those who are not.There appears to be no bright light at the end of the tunnel. We can expect the costs of higher education in Australia to increase even more. The other great disadvantage of this is that students who are getting lesser scores than other students can get into full fee paying places whilst students who get better marks cannot get in. One case was brought to my attention of a delightful student last year who was 0.2 per cent off getting into law at Monash University. She had won the Monash law prize, but she was 0.2 per cent off getting into the university on her TER score and she did not get in. Had she been a full fee paying student, she could have got in with 10 fewer marks. Had she not been the youngest of nine children, her parents may have been able to afford to do that. Sadly, they could not.Such disadvantage in the higher education sector appears to be growing. An article in the Age on 4 December, nicely titled `Cost of university degrees set to increase', gives a stark example of a situation developing in that sector where those financially well off can afford to send their children to university and those who are not well off will not be able to send their children to university. The article states:Education Minister Brendan Nelson's plans for higher education reform look likely to increase the cost of a university degree. Prime Minister John Howard and senior members of the government have been presented with Dr Nelson's completed reform package, which is widely tipped to deregulate the sector, allowing universities scope to set their own fees for courses.The package will be considered as part of next year's budget process but is unlikely to include any funding increase for universities, with Treasurer Peter Costello having ruled out new spending on anything other than defence. Questioned on the contents of the package yesterday, Dr Nelson repeatedly refused to assure students and their families that the cost of a university degree would not increase as a result of his plans.I believe our higher education system is less fair than it should be. And it appears that the Minister for Education, Science and Training is determined to make it unfairer still. At the same time as having increased the cost of university education, the government, through its inadequate funding, is causing a reduction in choice at universities. When reading the Age on Saturday, I came across an article titled `Uni staff face job losses in cost cuts'. It states: Monash University's—my old alma mater, which is in my electorate—arts faculty faces a deficit of $3.6 million next year. The dean, Homer Le Grand, has instituted a staff freeze and sent a memo to university employees warning of targeted redundancies.Professor Le Grand yesterday said government funding to universities had been steadily dropping and HECS revenue was not being reinvested in the sector. He said that despite the staff freeze, the university was considering new appointments in strategic areas and he hoped to avoid a repeat of the deep cuts in 1988 that meant 55 arts academics left the university.The article goes on to quote Mr Matthew McGowan, a fine individual who is the Secretary of the National Tertiary Education Union in Victoria. Mr McGowan said:Federal Government funding cuts have created a dynamic that supports and expands profitable areas and diminishes expensive areas, even when they are of great significance to our nation's cultural heritage.Monash built its reputation in the arts and sciences, which are the very areas most at risk in the current climate. I admit to having a personal interest in the operation of the arts faculty, having been a graduate of Monash University. But I think that this is a concern that we all should share, because it is simply not possible for our universities to continue to deliver the varied and high-quality education that we expect of them while cutting staff and reducing choice. There has been a recent report on the absolutely scandalous reduction in the education of students in Asian languages. Given where our country is located, I think this of stark concern, and we need to explore this. Something like three students are currently studying Japanese at higher university level within my electorate. That is just absurd. We will have no ability to engage with our neighbours if we cannot communicate with them. We are fairly bad at learning languages in our country anyway, with a stark belief that everybody speaks and understands English, but there is an absolute crisis in the teaching of Asian languages. Within the areas of arts and science at Monash University we have seen crisis after crisis, some brought on by university management, sadly, but a lot brought on by this government starving universities of funding. There does not seem to be any end in sight. Coupled with this is the inability of staff to actually undertake research because they are spending their entire life teaching huge numbers of students. Yes, that is their primary focus, but universities are also meant to be places where basic research is done. If we do not have basic research in this country, we will not have growth in future employment. Without looking at these things we will have no future for our children. I despair, because where are we going to go and where are they going to go? We used to fashion ourselves as the clever country, the country that was going to embark upon new ideas. This just seems to have been thrown out the door by this government and totally harshly disregarded. It is a tragedy, and it is a tragedy we cannot afford to have. More importantly, it is a tragedy our children cannot afford to have.We have a right to expect better from our universities and it is the responsibility of the government, in particular the minister for education, to make sure that our universities are resourced in a way that guarantees that quality will be maintained. We cannot continue to say that somehow somebody else will pick up the tab, students paying full fees will pick up the tab, industry will pick up the tab or somebody else will pick up the tab. At the end of the day it is a primary responsibility of the government to look after the education of our nation, and that is education across the board. I do not downplay other areas of education. I believe another area that needs looking at is TAFE. The TAFE sector is well represented in my electorate. But universities need to be maintained and they need to be better resourced. I accept that this government and this minister in particular do not have a belief in the importance of universities, but I believe that they are important, and the least the government and the minister could do is ensure that we are not going backwards. Currently our universities, their standards and their funding are going down the drain. 990617:03:009906Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—The Queensland Minister for Public Works and Housing recently told the Queensland parliament that the public housing waiting lists were at an all-time high in Queensland. We are at crisis point with public housing in Queensland, he said, with some people waiting for up to 10 years. In fact, according to the minister, we are facing conditions that are far worse than the conditions faced in the Great Depression. In true form, he levied the blame not at his own government's cut in state funding for public housing but at the federal government.I can confirm for the minister that the waiting list for public housing in Deception Bay in my electorate, for example, is indeed growing—from three to four months in the past year to 24 months. And the reason for this surge in the waiting list has more to do with state government revenue collection and funding cuts than any fictitious cuts in federal funding. A constituent from Deception Bay recently rang me and was very concerned that there were over 30 vacant public housing dwellings in this suburb while she knew of people who had been on the waiting list a long time. It seemed rather odd, she said to me, so I investigated further.I was surprised to learn that in Deception Bay the state government is conducting what they call community renewal—in other words, it is selling off public housing dwellings at a time when the Queensland minister for public housing is telling state parliament that we are at crisis point. So, while the state government swells the coffers, the waiting lists grow because availability declines. When availability declines, more people stay put and remain in their present accommodation, even if it is not in an ideal location, rather than risk becoming homeless altogether. As a result, waiting lists grow and keep growing. The situation is not good. Christmas for an increasing number of families is beginning to resemble a Dickens tale of Christmas past, rather than `It's great in the sunshine state'.Public housing in Deception Bay is currently at 31 per cent and in neighbouring Redcliffe it is 20 per cent. It is interesting to note that a lot of these figures are the result of a huge expansion in public housing in the lead-up to last year's federal election. It amazes me that, according to the Queensland minister, almost 28,000 people are listed on the public housing waiting list when in the 2000-01 financial year—just before the federal election—public housing development in my marginal Liberal seat of Petrie flourished. In that year alone, 17 separate dwellings, including duplexes, apartments and one five-bedroom detached house, were built on the Redcliffe Peninsula. I have never seen such a flurry of public housing development. Yet in the 12 months to June this year, after the federal election, only one three-bedroom dwelling has been constructed as part of the public housing program. A surge one year, a sell-off the next—and in the midst of a crisis. Where is the forward thinking in that? But it doesn't stop there.While chiding the federal government for our supposed cut in public housing, the state minister failed to add that his own government, the Queensland government, had cut over $600,000 from public housing expenditure in the current financial year. There are waiting lists in public housing, Minister, but remember: charity begins at home. The federal government provides funding to state and territory governments for public housing as part of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, the CSHA. Over the last four years of the current agreement, which ends in June next year, the Commonwealth government will have provided $4 billion to states and territories.Public housing funding is allocated to each state on the basis of a per capita funding formula that takes into account the reduced opportunities for economies of scale, particularly in the smaller states. In 2001-02, the Commonwealth provided almost $200.4 million to Queensland under the CSHA. The Queensland government provided $66.57 million in state matching funds. But, in 2002-03, Queensland will receive almost $202 million in Commonwealth funding—an increase of almost 10 per cent, and 19.6 per cent of total CSHA funding. In contrast, the Queensland state government is to provide $65.93 million in funding. That is a decrease on the previous year of almost 10 per cent, which is a shame. What is interesting is that, while the federal government increase their contribution by almost $2 million, the state government cut their contribution to this agreement by $640,000. In effect, Queensland has had an increase of just $1.5 million and it has been all Commonwealth money. In Queensland, under the CSHA, Commonwealth per capita spending in 2002-03 will be $54.96 compared to the national average of $52.44. In contrast, the Queensland government will spend $17.96 per capita on this agreement while the average expenditure in other states and territories is $18.34. But public housing assistance does not stop with CSHA. In the financial year to June 2002, low-income earners in Queensland received 25.5 per cent of the rent assistance for all of Australia, which amounted to $463 million. In this financial year, the Commonwealth is contributing 60.3 per cent, which is about $27.69 million, to the Commonwealth-state Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. The state government contributed 39.7 per cent or $18.23 million. This is a state government continually painting the federal government as the bogyman, and this seems to be the recurring feature of the state government's dogma on funding.But we need to look at a very interesting snapshot of the Queensland `smart state' government's report card on funding. We need to look at a number of portfolios. In the 2000-01 state budget, the Queensland state government cut funds from public hospitals by $20 million, and then it blamed the federal government for the cuts when they had just received a record $1.25 billion from the Howard government in that year—an increase of 33 per cent since 1997. The Queensland government was that very bright government that came up with the idea that, in order to improve teaching standards, they would pay $50,000 to underperforming teachers to leave the profession rather than investing in the future of Queensland education by delivering funding for schools, students and teachers. This year's Queensland state budget even failed to match the increases by the federal government on state education and it earned the wrath of the Queensland Teachers Union. The QTU ran a full-page ad in the Sunday Mail on 23 June announcing:... the Beattie government fails to deliver—again ... The Beattie government has let down state school students—again.It seems that Queensland, the so-called `smart state', is not so smart after all in delivering funds to those who need them the most. Funds are needed in areas such as public hospitals, state education and public housing. The Queensland minister might claim that almost $110 million is being ripped out of public housing by the federal government, but it is really the Queensland government that is ripping funds out of public housing and it is the Queensland government that will stand to make millions of dollars from the sale of 30 public housing dwellings in Deception Bay. Does this sound like a government that really cares about displaced families at the most important and vulnerable family time of the year? Does this sound like a government that is serious about providing solutions to a crisis which the minister has likened to the Great Depression? Sadly, for the sake of hundreds of Queensland families, it does not appear to be.If the Queensland government were serious about this issue, it would stop selling those dwellings and focus on delivering services rather than on raising revenue. Perhaps we should rename Queensland the `Scrooge state' because there is nothing smart about how the Queensland government is dealing with this issue. If the Queensland government is serious about dealing with this issue and not blanketing it, it needs to show that to the Queensland people. It needs to be honest, it needs to be serious about delivering services to needy families and it needs to re-think its revenue-raising community renewal projects at a time when people are experiencing huge waiting lists and displacement. It really has no excuse to cry poor because it is being given $5 billion worth of reasons in GST revenue in this financial year alone to deliver services to Queenslanders who need those services the most. 990817:13:009908Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—Four weeks ago, I spoke in this House on my private member's motion concerning peace in the Middle East. When I placed the motion on the Notice Paper in September, I could not have imagined the response to what most people would see as a reasonable proposal for a peaceful settlement. My motion was an invitation to this House to debate an issue which has not been debated here in living memory. Whether or not members of this House agreed with the motion, I expected that the debate would be conducted in a cool and rational way. I was aware that there are differences of opinion on this issue and that those differences go across party lines. I was also aware that some members of my own party did not want the motion to be debated. In particular, the member for Melbourne Ports went to great lengths to have the motion withdrawn.The events surrounding the selection of the motion and the attempts to have it withdrawn were fairly described in Alan Ramsey's column in the Sydney Morning Herald on 26 October. I must admit that I was surprised that a private member's motion from an opposition backbench member could attract so much interest, but I was soon to find out why there is a code of silence in this parliament which forbids the discussion of what is by any description a major issue in world affairs. I would have thought an open discussion of this issue free from party pressure may have been a valuable exercise. Even considering the fact that Australia is not a major player in Middle Eastern affairs, for our national parliament the issue was certainly worthy of debate. After all, you can hardly watch any TV news bulletin without seeing coverage of recent incidents in the Middle East. From the outset, the motion was not going to be an opportunity for members to debate this issue in a rational manner.Following the Ramsey article, I began to receive phone calls, letters and emails—most of which were supportive. I could not help but notice a common thread in many of the messages of support. The letters congratulated me on my motion and indicated the writers' support for my proposals. One email echoed a common response with the remark:It's good to see someone has the courage to go about solving a problem the correct way rather than worrying about lobby groups.In a country which prides itself on its traditions of democracy and free speech, you would not think courage was needed to speak on a motion in this parliament. But, later in his article, Alan Ramsey relates the experience of former ABC Middle East correspondent Tim Palmer. In this and other incidents brought to my attention, anyone speaking or writing publicly on the Middle East can expect to be subjected to personal attacks and to have assumptions made about their reasons for raising the issue. As one senior media commentator expressed in an email to me:As no doubt you are already discovering you are going to be singled out for vilification and, if possible, political destruction.You have taken on the most implacable, arrogant, cruel and powerful lobby in the country. I know. I have felt the full force of their fury.That should have prepared me for the article in the Australian written by Glenn Milne on the day the debate took place. In what was clearly designed to put party pressure on me, Milne warned in the opening paragraph:Simon Crean may be about to pay a heavy price for pushing Labor's policy on the Middle East and Iraq to the Left in a bid to differentiate himself from John Howard and confront the electoral challenge posed by the Greens.Crean now risks losing the legacy of support built by Bob Hawke in the Australian Jewish community ... He went on to say:The Jewish community is a substantial lobby, well-organised, financially powerful and politically influential.Milne made no attempt to discuss the issues in the debate. He simply attacked what he claimed were my motives for presenting the motion and attempted to pressure the Leader of the Opposition to censor me. To his credit, the leader made no attempt to intervene in what should have been an open debate. Having read that article on the morning of the debate, I should have been well aware of the tactics to be used that afternoon. As it happened, the member for Sturt and the member for Casey followed exactly that same line in the debate. There was no discussion of the issues; there were just personal attacks on me and uninformed questioning of my motives for moving the motion. This approach to the debate did not escape the attention of the Canberra Times defence writer, Lincoln Wright. On 13 November, Wright commented: What did Liberals Tony Smith and South Australia's Christopher Pyne ... use the opportunity for? The shallowest, most juvenile form of ad hominem attacks ... Offered the opportunity to provide a balanced comment, Pyne and Smith embarrassed themselves with a transparent and pathetic attempt to discredit Crean for not cracking down on anti-Israel MPs.Lincoln Wright concluded by saying:That the Government allowed Pyne and Smith to address parliament on such an important issue says a lot about how seriously it regards real debate over foreign-policy matters.The Sydney Morning Herald editorial of 14 November made the comments:It was not the content of this motion that proved most contentious. For the Adelaide Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, it was the fact that the subject had been raised at all. In an extraordinary attack on Mrs Irwin, Mr Pyne accused her of “base political motives” for moving a motion “critical of Israel” and “silent on terrorism”. The thrust of Mr Pyne's attack—that Mrs Irwin was motivated by the need to satisfy members of the Lebanese community brought into the ALP in branch-stacking exercises—was foolish and irrelevant. It contributed nothing to the debate.It concluded by saying:The debate begun by Mrs Irwin, now adjourned, will continue, as it should.And I intend to see that it does continue. I have been amazed at the public response to the debate. The issue featured in letters columns of the daily newspapers and has been one of the most written about issues over the past weeks. I have received over 200 emails and dozens of phone calls and letters from a wide cross-section of Australians. I am pleased to say that most of the messages have supported my proposal. Some messages came from academics. For example, Dr Simon Adams, Head of the School of Arts and Letters, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, emailed me as follows:As an academic specialist in peace and conflict studies I wanted to congratulate you on your brave attempt to raise the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the federal parliament.For too long in this country there has been a stifling silence regarding the conflict in the Middle East.And Professor John Macdonald of the University of Western Sydney wrote:I want to thank you for your courageous effort to have the issue of Palestine, or at least the issue of settlements on the West Bank brought to the floor of the House.I was saddened at the attempts to stifle even the most moderate of debates and the way in which you were not listened to.There are hundreds more messages similar to those that I have just read out. They made me reflect on Alan Ramsey's article and other comments passed on to me. I am not brave and I am not courageous, but I am in a position to speak out on this issue and I will continue to do so. I commend for their courage the many ordinary citizens who have spoken out and have paid a high price for their stand, the people in the media who have been silenced and the people of Jewish backgrounds who have been attacked for supporting peace initiatives in the Middle East. They are the brave and courageous souls. I feel that the taboo on discussing this issue in this parliament has been broken. What is needed now is genuine and open debate. As a member of this parliament, I will ensure that this most important debate on peace in the Middle East continues. I, for one—and unlike some government members of this parliament—will make sure it will be a genuine and open debate.990917:23:009909Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—The 22nd of November 2002 was the 50th anniversary of a historic event that directly led to the early development of the giant Pilbara iron ore province in Western Australia. This country has never looked back, as they say, but it is high time we did so. Fifty years on, it is fitting that we should commemorate the discovery flight on 22 November 1952, when Lang Hancock and his wife, Hope, survived a perilous flight in a tiny, fragile aircraft—a flight which changed their lives and initiated a great wave of prosperity that flowed to the state of Western Australia, to the federal government, directly to many individuals and, invisibly and often unappreciated, to every person in Australia. On this memorable flight, Lang Hancock, forced to fly below storm clouds that obscured the tops of the range he and Hope had to cross, could not turn back: the clouds were closing in behind. Neither could he fly over the massive storm ahead. He flew downstream through the gorges, knowing that that was the only escape route. Even in this life-threatening situation, the observant prospector-pilot could not help but notice the metalliferous bands spectacularly layered in the walls of the gorge. Freshly wet by the storm, they stood out clearly. Never had Lang Hancock been in such a close-up situation to observe the deposits so dramatically presented.Months later he returned to sample these iron ore deposits and found they were high grade and extensive beyond measure; however, because of government restrictions, Lang Hancock had to spend the best part of the next decade convincing governments that their iron ore embargo was based on a false premise. Conventional wisdom of the time held that Australia had minimal iron ore reserves. One estimate gloomily forecast that iron ore would have to be imported by 1965. Lang Hancock was the first person to observe and to realise that we could supply the total world consumption of iron ore for probably thousands of years, or indefinitely into the future.Every new generation must be regularly reminded of the achievements of their predecessors. The achievements of Lang Hancock were against the odds and were extraordinary by any measure. After more than eight years of effort from when he first sighted and recognised these massive iron ore deposits, Lang Hancock had only just begun to open up the treasure trove we know today. He was to spend the rest of his long, remarkable life exploring for new deposits, fighting government bureaucracies for ownership rights and for a fair playing field and developing the mineral potential of this incredibly rich province, the Pilbara.The author of Lang Hancock's biography asks how future generations will perceive him. More has been written about Lang Hancock than about most Australians. Much of this has been ill-informed, especially when covering only the last few years of an eventful and productive career. A shadow has been cast over his enormous achievements. But Lang Hancock's drive, energy and vision should never be forgotten. The wealth he accessed is shared in various ways by every person in the country. As beneficiaries, we must understand and appreciate the background to the affluent society we have inherited and enjoy today. It is time to pay tribute to an outstanding character who contributed more than his share.In commemorating this great Australian pioneer, perhaps we can also put to rest myths spread by those who delight in the great Australian put-down. Lang Hancock worked hard and courageously throughout his life to support himself, his family and those who depended on him. He once spent up to seven months of the year in the saddle herding sheep and hunting dingoes in a lonely existence in the remote North-West, totally dependent on his wits, his horse, his crib, his swag and his rifle. Then he took to the air. He learned the basic skills in a couple of short lessons and became, in the opinion of his lifelong friend and cousin Air Vice Marshal Sir Valston Hancock, probably the finest bush pilot in the country. His logbooks record that he spent over 7,000 hours, or the best part of a year, aloft at the controls of a single- or twin-engine aeroplane.No aircraft maintenance mechanics or facilities in the remote Pilbara? No problem. Lang built his own well-equipped workshop on Mulga Station and obtained qualifications to service and maintain the first 14 of the 23 aircraft he purchased over the years. He qualified as a jet pilot at the age of 65, but then he could afford to have his aircraft and his work horses serviced and stabled by others. Retirement was not an option for Lang Hancock; he had too much to do. His word was his bond. His lifelong business partnership with his friend from their school days, Peter Wright, was honoured by both without a written agreement for most of their long and productive lives. He enjoyed a good joke and retained a keen sense of humour through many difficult times—although sometimes his superb airmanship in the gorges and over the mudflats was only appreciated by the passengers after they landed or by the ground crews after they had showered. He could have taken his hard-earned money and retired to the good life wherever he chose in this world. Instead he chose to invest his wealth and his future in this country, to explore and develop his beloved Pilbara and to attempt to educate his fellow Australians regarding the advantages of private enterprise over central planning and socialist utopian governmental policies.He flew hundreds of people into the Pilbara and personally showed them a land he knew like the back of his hand. Prime ministers, premiers, politicians of all persuasions, public servants—and he referred to them as civil servants—captains of industry and commerce, reporters, and many others were guided over and across the vast, resource-filled and still largely untapped north-west of Western Australia. He founded newspapers, wrote editorials, published more papers than most professors, gave keynote speeches and never backed away from public debate with uninformed critics.His basic education at Hale School served him well, for he kept himself remarkably well informed and self-educated. He was a voracious reader and his many long and lonely nights in the north-west were well spent reading, writing and planning. Numerous setbacks were accepted with stoicism and resulted in an even greater resolve to do the job. Many of his dreams were unrealised, such as a downhill railway to a super-port and steel mill on the west coast and another super-port and steel mill on the east coast of Australia with iron ore and coal back loaded between two strategically located and economic outlets to the markets of the world. These will eventuate sooner or later, for they were the dreams of a practical visionary.His daughter, Gina, and grandchildren, John, Bianca, Hope and Ginia, have every reason to be proud of the life of this exceptional pioneer. It is high time we acknowledged the extraordinary achievements of a great Australian, Lang Hancock. It has been my privilege here, as a friend of the Hancock family and an Australian who has been given the privilege of representing fellow Australians in this House, to raise this little bit of history which this country and this parliament would do well to remember.991117:32:009911Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I grieve this evening for the funding of legal aid in the states and territories. It is almost a mantra that legal aid is grossly underfunded and, as a consequence, many people are denied access to justice. The legal aid commissions and legal services commissions of the states and territories are literally beleaguered with legal matters and simply cannot cope. Whilst it is difficult to put precise figures on this matter, bodies such as the various law societies and bar associations talk in terms of approximately doubling the financial commitments from the states and the Commonwealth in order to do any justice to the system.I bring this matter to the attention of the House this evening as there has been an issue going to what I would consider a bread-and-butter legal practice issue—wills, probate and administration. Wills, probate and administration is the jurisdictional responsibility of the state governments. Funding from the states and the Commonwealth is given to the legal aid commissions, such as the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, in their administration of state and Commonwealth laws. Upon reading the Legal Aid NSW annual report 2001-02, I understand that this aid is roughly in proportion to the amount of New South Wales and Commonwealth work that is performed by that commission. In particular, the Department of the Parliamentary Library has advised me as follows:Commonwealth funding is used to provide assistance in Commonwealth matters and is provided through purchaser-provider agreements which specify outcomes, output levels and prices for service delivery. Whilst I have noted that the jurisdiction of wills, probate and administration is the responsibility of the states and territories, I further note that, with the increased incidence of terrorism, there is an added responsibility on the Commonwealth government to adequately support families who have very limited financial means and are suffering the personal devastation of terrorism.Speaking generally, there is a massive shortfall in the money afforded to legal aid of all kinds. Thus the legal aid commissions and legal services commissions in the states and territories are continuously compelled to adjust their policy guidelines for matters which they are willing to undertake and forever adjusting the means test by which persons may be eligible for a grant of legal aid. It is increasingly difficult for persons to qualify for a grant of legal aid, thus making their access to justice more and more difficult—to the point of becoming prohibitive. Those denied access to legal aid are thus deprived of justice because they have, in a real sense, been denied access to their rights.One constituent matter I have been dealing with cries out for justice. I will keep the names of the persons associated with this matter suppressed out of respect for the individuals involved. This matter concerns the administration of the estate of one of the 80 victims of the Bali bombing, and includes matters going to the wills, probate and administration of the deceased's estate. The case involves one of my constituents, whom I have been helping. She is the mother of the deceased and is dependent solely on an aged pension. Her assets are very modest and would thus, in my view, allow her to qualify for legal aid under a means test. This mother lost her only child; a single daughter aged 30 years. The daughter died intestate with potential assets to her estate, including travel insurance and superannuation. Like any deceased estate, there are inevitably statutory and other debts, including funeral expenses.In short, the estate must be administered professionally. I have liaised with the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, which has confirmed that legal aid is not available for wills, non-contentious proceedings in the Probate Division of the Supreme Court and administration matters. The situation is that this mother requires the assistance of a legal practitioner competent in the administration of the estate of her late daughter. Other harm may follow if she does not obtain the necessary professional assistance.Sadly, this case highlights the need for legal aid in certain matters going to wills, probate and administration law. I note that the Commonwealth government has allocated some funding under the Bali Assist service and Centrelink are administering financial assistance for travel, health care, counselling, income support and funeral costs. I take this opportunity to acknowledge that, in the case of my constituent and her family, the government have done a very good job in helping the family visit Bali and providing financial assistance towards the cost of the funeral. I also take this opportunity to record, on behalf of my constituent and her family, their deep appreciation of a telephone call made to the family by the Governor-General and a one-hour personal visit made to their home by the Governor-General and Mrs Hollingworth, complete with flowers and a card. I understand the Governor-General is telephoning and visiting all the families of the Bali victims and in this House tonight I want to say, `Well done, Dr and Mrs Hollingworth.'Returning specifically to the matter at the heart of my speech in this grievance debate, I make the point that government assistance to Bali victims does not include the administration of the estates of deceased relatives who were victims of the bombing; it includes only the direct costs of the funerals themselves. Funding ought to be made available to the families of victims of the Bali bombing for wills, probate and administration of deceased family members' estates. I note from the Legal Aid NSW annual report 2001-02 that the Commonwealth government contributed $41.513 million in funding for Commonwealth legal matters. Money ought to be provided for special cases such as the one I am raising in this chamber tonight. Whether funding be made by special grant or through legal aid, I urge the government to consider ways in which family members of victims of terrorism might have access to proper professional services relating to wills, probate and administration where the families otherwise cannot afford such services. It is often said that there are two certainties in life: death and taxes. Funding should be available for those who are victims of terrorist attacks—as in the case I am raising tonight. Sadly, death from terrorist attacks has become almost a daily worldwide occurrence and, tragically, innocent families are being left to pick up the pieces. I have put a question to the Attorney-General on tomorrow's Notice Paper. For the benefit of the House, I will read it now: Will the Government provide an increase in legal aid funding or special funding for persons who are charged with executor and trustee administrative duties of Australian citizens who are of limited financial means such as pensioners and who otherwise qualify for a grant of legal aid, who have administrative responsibilities in the administration of the deceased estates of Australians who have perished through terrorist attacks such as the Bali attack? If so, when? If not, why not?Clearly the case I have been speaking about this evening cries out for justice and help. As I said, this mother is on a pension. She has no other assets and she has lost her only daughter in the most barbaric and tragic of circumstances. I do not think that such situations were envisaged for the purposes of legal aid. I therefore plead with the Attorney-General and the Howard government to help this lady and her family. 991317:41:009913Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to comment on an ugly phenomenon which has raised its head in the lead-up to Christmas 2002. Put succinctly, it proposes that we not celebrate Christmas and that so-called culturally insensitive images such as Santa Claus be removed. Far from being an appeal to tolerance, this is an affront to it. Personally, I find it offensive.Let me trace the history of Christmas as we celebrate it. Nothing quite equals the joy on the face of a child on Christmas morning, nor the satisfaction on the faces of parents, grandparents or carers. The sheer wonderment of something outside a child's normal experience—the Christmas tree, the lights, the decorations and the gifts—is something to behold. For others, Christmas is a time for coming home and meeting in family groups, a time to relax, to turn off, to holiday, to reflect on the year past and to renew for the year ahead. For the wider community, it is a time for parties, exchanging small gifts, giving to charities and sending cards. If you have any doubt about Australians sending cards and embracing the tradition, Australia Post estimates that this year we will distribute 10 million cards among our fellow Australians.For still others, Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ and a time for religious observation. Indeed, the festival comes from Christes maesse or Christ's mass. It has been celebrated in the Christian church since at least 336 AD. It is no flash in the pan event; it is interwoven into the fabric of Western culture, Middle Eastern culture and parts of eastern cultures. It is celebrated on 25 December, except in some orthodox and eastern rites where the celebration occurs on 6 January.The form of the celebration has changed but in derivation it seems to have been associated with St Nicholas, who was born in Patara. He became a priest at the age of 19 and, later, Bishop of Myra. St Nicholas was noted for his generosity. Miracles were attributed to him and legend has it that he provided dowries for young girls so that they could marry rather than be forced into prostitution. He is still strongly revered in the eastern church. Over the years, the imagery of St Nicholas in his bishop's robes has been adapted so that now he wears red garb with white trim. During the Reformation in England when the images of saints were removed, the imagery of St Nicolas was adapted to become that of Father Christmas. The French imagery was that of Pere Noel.In Western culture, the Dutch retained the imagery of St Nicholas, or Sinter Klaas as they called him. He went with the Dutch to the New World, where the name became anglicised to Santa Claus. In 1823 Santa, as we now know him, emerged in a poem in the New York Sentinel. It commenced with the long revered and much quoted sentence, `Twas the night before Christmas.' The poem, known as An Account of a Visit from St Nicholas, described him as a jolly fat man with a red face and a twinkle in his eyes. So, from the eucharist of Christ's birthday to the jolly man of good cheer, there is a common thread of religious celebration and general goodwill, embracing many cultures and subcultures. But what would others have us believe or celebrate—some bland, atheistic apology of `holiday time'? No, this festival was transported with those who settled this land and, despite the reversal of climates in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, it has survived with all its wonder, imagery of fir trees and decorations, generosity to the less fortunate, reunions of families, carol singing, greetings, good food and the like. To take the Christ child out of this continuum is at worst to deny it and at best to water it down. Strangely, only today I heard in a radio report that authorities in Toronto, Canada, had by resolution decided to rename their `holiday tree' a `Christmas tree' again. No doubt the other image was just too bland. It will be a sad and withered landscape if we let the self-appointed custodians of political correctness and the multicultural zealots take control of this agenda in the name of cultural sensitivity.The message of Christmas is about a little boy born in a barn to humble parents, his father a carpenter. His arrival was heralded by the message of peace on earth and goodwill to men and he attracted, from his earliest day, three community leaders in the person of the three kings and humble people in the person of shepherds. What, I ask, could be more inclusive than that? If Christmas is to be the plaything of the bland zealots, what next? Would we accept no hymns on Anzac Day? I would like to be the one who told some of our diggers that! Would we deprive our Indigenous community of the celebration of the rainbow serpent? Would we deny other religious cultures their great and cherished annual ceremonies and events? Of course not.It is interesting to see how the Russians are returning to their faith, involving church leaders in their national ceremonies some 70 years after the early days of the bland and desolate communist culture. Only recently, I was at a civil wedding ceremony which, I might add, was uncomfortably bland, especially in its externals. I do not reflect for a moment on the young couple, but the celebrant read from a number of poems and readings, all suitably neutral. The pièce de resistance was her appeal to the happy couple with what I believe she described as a `lovely poem'. It was, word for word, St Paul's treatise on love from chapter 13 of I Corinthians—but there was no acknowledgment, just a word-for-word plagiarism. Even that civil ceremony needed something else. I suspect, were we to abandon Christmas, we would, like the Russians, soon be looking to recapture the certainty of our lost traditions.What the dogmatists of the politically correct agenda fail to see is that, in suppressing the Christmas message, they deny their own mantra of tolerance and inclusiveness. They make a sham of multiculturalism. As journalist Angela Shanahan put it so succinctly this week in the Australian:In other words, children are only to be allowed the hollow remnants of the feast and not the central defining reason for it—the celebration of Christ's birth. This is not respect for Christian cultural sensitivities, and ironically, it isn't true multiculturalism.I have one other thing to add. People came to this country because we have a tradition here, descended from the Christian tradition itself. The Christian tradition was transposed into the British Isles and, up until the last 20 or 30 years, most people came from that culture. What made Australia so attractive to others who wanted to come here was the certainty of its laws, as well as its tolerance, understanding, legal traditions and political system. What came from that was an inclusive lifestyle and a regime of safety, interwoven with the Christian tradition. While everyone in this country should feel happy and relaxed and no-one should feel uncomfortable, regardless of their race or their creed, we do not have to deny our own traditions to celebrate our seminal annual activity.I dearly hope that all Australians, whether they be born in our land or migrants, realise that, if we let our culture be undermined in the name of sensitivity and correctness, we will soon be trussed to a bland, featureless way of life. Interestingly, many ethnic and religious groups have already spoken out about the Santa Claus controversy and condemned those who wish to ban him from our festive traditions. Our Jewish and Islamic leaders have pilloried this absurd notion, to the praise of everyday Australians. With the current uneasiness in the international climate, I would have thought Santa was a ray of sunshine in an otherwise dark world. To banish him to the wilderness of political correctness robs us of a focal point for sharing, caring and youthful joy. 10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question agreed to. Committees99159915991517:51:009915Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)10000PON/A10—I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Stott Despoja has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.Bills9915R15739915Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting.Bills9915R15099915Debate resumed from 5 December, on motion by Mr Williams:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr McClelland moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“the House declines to give the Bill a second reading and condemns the Government for proposing to further remove protections against the parallel importation of software products, books, periodicals and print music in circumstances where the Government has failed to:(a) address concerns about increased piracy by responding to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs 2000 report on copyright enforcement Cracking down on copycats;(b) adduce properly researched and credible evidence that the removal of parallel importation restrictions has resulted in lower music CD prices for consumers; and(c) reform and simplify technical and regulatory guidelines that place strictures on the development of Australia's computer software and computer games industries”.17:52:009915King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—I rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Bill 2002. Copyright is the interest of the author or composer in the conceptual foundation—or perhaps I could say the genius—of an original work of literature, music or some other form of art. It is sensible that we protect copyright by law, as contained in the Copyright Act itself, because originality itself ought to be rewarded. It is also sensible to introduce measures through this parliament that will increase competition for original works in this country, because it is only through competition that such works will effectively be made more available to more people by lower prices and through a better market network to a broader number of Australians. That is the sensible objective of the legislation before this House today, and it is based on a fair go for all Australians. Whilst it reduces the potential profit margins of the number of multinational companies operating in this country and around the world in this market, it does increase the access of ordinary Australians to works of art and information technology—while at the same time maintaining a fair author dividend. From these proposals there are a number of winners. Authors and composers are winners because the numbers of sales are increased through greater competition, not just simply from sales in this country—from books and other works manufactured in Australia—but also from their own copyright materials produced overseas. It was suggested by the member for Barton that in some way authors and composers were going to be losers. His words were that it will significantly damage and retard the development of these important industries—but he did not say how. He suggested that there would be an adverse effect on returns to authors because overseas editions would be reduced in value and remaindered editions would return a nil value. That, with the greatest respect, shows a lack of appreciation of the nature of the reward or royalty that accrues to authors and composers in respect of works such as books, sheet music and so on. It is a set rate, and it is normally agreed between the author or composer and the producer. It is the producers who are squeezed by the lower margins. It is the lower margins which produce the competitive effect and the lower prices which are to the benefit of Australian people. The reading and listening public are also winners. The member for Paterson in his address the other day spoke about the impact of the 1998 equivalent reforms in relation to CDs. The ACCC in its report at that time noted that the cost of CDs fell from about $30 to $19.50, and it was even suggested one year later that it had fallen to $12.99 in Kmart. That just illustrates how in a very short space of time the reading and listening public can be advantaged by a broader market and competition in relation to copyright material.Also winners are the genuinely competitive book publishers. For example, it was shown in relation to CDs that over the year 1998-99 there was a 2.9 per cent increase in the total market, simply because of the greater competition. The genuine producers are obviously, therefore, advantaged. It was conceded by the member for Blaxland in his address that where a market—whether it is domestic or overseas—is dominated by foreign companies, as is the case in relation to the markets that are subject to this legislation, parallel importation is sensible. In other words, parallel importation reduces the effect of market domination. The member for Blaxland made that concession in this very debate. My suggestion to the House is that that point ought to be taken broadly across the board for the whole of this legislation. It is a strong reason for accepting the germane point behind the legislation.Booksellers themselves are also winners through lower prices and more sales. Although their margins may be reduced, their turnovers will be increased and they, too, will be advantaged. This is because the problem faced by the industries and by the various people I have mentioned is unrealistically inflated prices controlled by the makers of the products. Libraries and public collections will be winners, and students and educators, because of the lower margins and prices and because of the greater network and variety of books coming onto the market.It is said, however, by the opposition that pirates will be winners. But where is the evidence for that? The committee report Cracking down on copycats, which was produced in November 2000, and which was referred to by the member for Barton—who was quoting, if I may say so, selectively from the report—notes at paragraph 2.1:Yet there is a lack of data on the form and extent of copyright infringement in Australia, and the little that does exist, suggests that by world standards, it is minor.At page 9 of the report, at paragraph 2.17, there is a detailed table set out. In relation to piracy estimates in 1998 for films, CDs and business software, Australia had the best record—that is, the lowest level of piracy—in each of those categories, except for business software, where it was beaten by Germany by only three per cent. So the arguments just do not stack up, and the real losers in this debate are the opposition, who have failed to bring forward any cogent reason for advocating the position that they have.Australians are an inventive people and we do respect and honour originality. But what do we mean when we speak about originality in this context? We have had various attempts at definitions. Let us go to Ralph Waldo Emerson, who asked the question, `What is originality?' He suggests, `It is being one's self, and reporting accurately what we see and are,' something along the lines of Shakespeare's `hold the mirror up to nature'. But copyright is not so much originality of thought; rather, it is originality of expression, because one can have a bright idea but if one cannot express it or express it in a way that is original it will be lost as a bright idea. The whole point of this legislation is to ensure that those original ideas are brought to the broadest number of people. This was somewhat better expressed by John Stuart Mill when he said in his 1859 work On Liberty, `All good things which exist are the fruits of originality.' That too is perhaps not entirely correct. It is a somewhat utilitarian view, because we could say that of God—God exists—but God is not original in the sense used by the philosopher. The same thing may be said of people. A better definition is that from Carlyle, the essayist, who said, `Originality is a thing we constantly clamour for, and constantly quarrel with.' We are familiar with that idea in politics when we look at the careers of politicians such as Billy Hughes and Gough Whitlam. The reason is that originality is something that people do argue about, do contest, and that is the very point. But at the end of the day, the essence of originality is surprise; it is that spark of genius which makes a good poem into a great poem, an ordinary novel into a good novel, a bland piece of music into a work of art. At the end of the day, it is that special spark of genius which is the core of what is protected by the copyright legislation, and that will not change as a result of this proposed legislation. I have here some of the great works of Australian literature, which the member for Barton suggested may no longer be available to the reading public or may not offer a fair return to those who wrote and published overseas. I have here the wonderful book The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith, Peter Carey's Oscar and Lucinda, Marcus Clarke's 1870 work For the Term of His Natural Life and Miles Franklin's My Brilliant Career. I did a small poll of some of my colleagues in relation to this issue and compared the somewhat `dense' authors that were referred to by the member for Barton. The authors of the rather more classic works that I just spoke of and admire will all be advantaged by this legislation. Under the system that is proposed in this legislation, they might all become available to a broader group of the public, so there will be various winners, as I referred to a while ago.The competition proposals significantly advantage all Australians. That is at the heart of this legislation. The piracy objection holds no water. The amendment proposed by the opposition is of no moment. This is legislation which ought to be passed because it benefits the greatest number. It represents a fair go for all, and it represents a good outcome for all Australians. I support the legislation. 18:04:009917Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I have agreed to limit my remarks on the Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Bill 2002 to 10 minutes. I presume that is so the Attorney-General can say a few words in response before we divide on the opposition's second reading amendment. In some respects, that is unfortunate, because I did want to say more. But in the interests of the order of the House, I will restrict my remarks. This bill is indicative, in my view, of the government's general attitude to our cultural life: a combination of hostility and neglect. To my knowledge, the Prime Minister has never made a major speech on Australia's artistic and cultural life, nor does he recognise or celebrate the work and achievements of our artists, alive or dead. Cricketers, yes; artists, no. Such omissions in my view are not accidental and they are not trivial. They are intended to send a clear message about the government's priorities and values—that is, that the arts and cultural policies are not particularly important to our national wellbeing. The Prime Minister, in particular, is persisting with an extremely silly vendetta against the arts community for what he sees as their excessive and enthusiastic support for Keating and for causes that he regards as unworthy: reconciliation, native title, the stolen generations, to name a few. In this and other areas of public life, he has set out to expunge the Keating legacy, as he sees it. The Prime Minister appears not to understand in doing this that the arts are by definition `subversive', in the sense that artists are constantly looking behind our assumed reality and stimulating novel perspectives. They are inclined in their work to rub against our certainties and to question the status quo. If that makes the Prime Minister feel uncomfortable, I am sad for him. Such actions and insights are often resisted by political establishments—indeed, the more authoritarian, the greater the hostility. In failing to nurture and support the arts in Australia, this government is diminishing our capacity as a nation. The Howard government is on a mission to politicise the bodies responsible for managing our national cultural institutions and funding arts practitioners. Recommendations, for instance, from the Australia Council about suitable appointments to their constituent boards are routinely ignored, and the community are puzzled by the people who are placed in there. The most recent example of political interference, I believe, is the renewal for only one year of Dawn Casey's contract as Director of the National Museum—after much delay and without any explanation at all. There are rumours that a review of the Museum, which has been mooted, will be used as an opportunity to challenge some of the values and history, particularly that pertaining to Indigenous people. Howard's minions apparently intend to eradicate what they regard as the black armband view of history incorporated into the museum's exhibits and interpretation. I think it is a matter of: watch this space. A survey of community values on why people value collections and `what factors or combination of factors influence that support' will be undertaken. This `survey' tactic is often used by the government when it proposes a radical change of direction and needs some justification when it cannot gain the support it needs from those who are well informed about policy and practice, both here and elsewhere. The government substitutes prejudice for knowledge and calls it consultation.Willingness to abandon Australian content regulation in film and TV as part of a free trade deal with the United States is also indicative of the fact that the jobs of actors, scriptwriters, musicians, directors and film workers are less important, apparently, than the jobs of those in agriculture. Never mind the loss of Australian stories, images and talent which would inevitably follow. This is taking `all the way with the USA' to new levels. The bill now before the House is equally offensive and destructive. This is one case, apparently, when we cannot have border protection. The government is not prepared to protect Australia's greatest asset: its creative people. We in the Labor Party have objected to the bill in the past and do so again, particularly because it will have a detrimental effect on Australia's authors, our publishing industry and creative people generally. We have also moved a second reading amendment to highlight the government's failure to respond to the House of Representatives committee report on copyright enforcement. The bill before us, as I am sure you are all aware, is virtually identical to the bill that was introduced in 2001 and intends that the same policy that applies to CDs apply to books, print music, periodicals and software. The 2001 bill was considered in detail and reported on by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. The majority of submissions urged that the bill be rejected, yet we have it back again. While government senators on that committee, unsurprisingly, recommended supporting the bill, even they expressed a number of serious concerns, which have not been addressed. They pointed out that the government had failed to address concerns about increased piracy and had not responded to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs' 2000 report on copyright enforcement, Cracking down on copycats. They also pointed out that the evidence from the ACCC that Australians pay higher prices for these categories of material was open to doubt—and I hasten to add that it was actually wrong. They pointed out that there was no evidence that parallel importation of CDs had led to lower prices for consumers and no evidence that it would do so for these other categories of material. Government senators recommended that the Attorney-General's Department and other relevant departments allocate funding to an independent body, such as the Australian Copyright Council, to collect more reliable data on prices in the industries affected by the bill. As yet, there is no evidence to suggest the government have undertaken any of these recommendations, and certainly they have not responded to the report. The submission by the Australian Publishers Association contained a good summary of the likely adverse consequences of this bill if it passes into law. These include: the dumping of overstocks and overruns of foreign editions to the detriment of local publishers; a reduction in the value of Australian copyrights, as they would no longer have exclusive rights; and a reduction in the royalty returns of Australian authors where foreign editions of their works are made available in the home market. I point out to the minister responsible that writers' incomes are already perilously low, and this will send them even lower—if that is possible. The association also pointed out that the tendency for rights in all territories—so-called `world rights'—to be held by a single owner would advantage multinational firms but disadvantage small local firms and authors, and, finally, that there would be a reduction in the level of local publishing activity. Does the government seriously intend these outcomes?As renowned writer Kate Grenville wrote to me, and no doubt to others:Even without legal parallel importation, I lose substantial income every year from US remainders of my work being sold here. Not only do I get no royalties on these remainders, I also miss out on a sale of the Australian edition, on which I do get royalties.She goes on to say:Parallel importation would multiply this effect a thousandfold. Most writers, myself included, would have to stop writing in order to make a living some other way. The outlook for emerging writers would be grim indeed.Authors generally are also concerned about the cultural integrity of their work. As the Australian Society of Authors put it:We don't want Americanised or Anglicised versions of our work—which are published in those places—for sale here ... We should be proud of our culture and language, and doing our utmost to protect it rather than erode it.You would think the government would have that objective. It is interesting that the previous speaker made reference to Peter Carey as he has condemned this legislation out of hand. It is all very well to say that such writers might support it, but they clearly do not. Peter Carey has made similar observations to those of the Society of Authors and Kate Grenville. He said:I can't think of another nation on the planet that would consider removing territorial copyright from its artists. Can we imagine the French doing it? We know it's impossible, because we know that the French value their culture. I'm shocked and ashamed to think we may not. Many of those who made submissions to the Senate inquiry do not believe the change will have the effects intended by the government. In summary, the proposed improvements have already been achieved by the introduction of the 30/90-day rule in the amendments of 1991. The proposed amendments are based on incorrect assumptions— namely, that books are more expensive in Australia than in the UK or in the USA and that this is the result of international price discrimination by the dominant market players that is unfavourable to Australian consumers. Let us look at the evidence. Analysis undertaken by the Australian publishing industry shows that Australian consumers can purchase books at lower prices than in the US and in the UK. If you look at the breakdown, it is a very fair one that they have undertaken. For the top 20 trade title bestsellers, US prices exceed those in Australia by 78 per cent and UK prices exceed them by 52 per cent. Academic and professional publications are also cheaper here.Under the current law, Australian publishing has expanded and the percentage of available titles published locally has grown. Without the right to prevent parallel importation, copyright in Australia becomes non-exclusive and, therefore, less valuable to everybody. There is an increased risk and reduced incentive for Australian publishers to purchase Australian rights to overseas titles because they would be vulnerable to competition by free riders who do not purchase Australian rights or support the necessary investment in distribution and promotion. For example, anyone who acquires rights in an overseas territory can effectively add Australia for free. Clearly, publishers will attempt to minimise the supply into Australia of foreign editions by contract where possible, but contractual provisions bind only contracting parties and are not an effective substitute for property rights enforceable against the world. This is likely to result in fewer publishers purchasing Australian rights to overseas works and the level of publishing activity in Australia can be expected to decline. Local publishing will be replaced by imported foreign editions and some titles may not be supplied to the Australian market at all. The publication of Australian books is of significant cultural and economic importance and publishers are selling more overseas rights than ever before. Do we want to see this turned around? Apparently, we do. There are a number of other observations that I could make but, in the interests of cooperation, I will not do so except to summarise. The present copyright regime has succeeded in delivering cheaper books to the consumer while at the same time reinvigorating the local printing industry, encouraging Australian publishers and agents to seek overseas markets for their authors and rewarding Australian authors and publishers for their initiative, their creativity and their contribution to our country. Australia's authors and publishers, our cultural producers, are just as important to the national interest as our primary producers. The proposed bill would abandon a strategic resource and diminish our ability as a nation to represent ourselves to the rest of the world and to tell our stories rather than others. Thirty years of a remarkable cultural flowering in literature and publishing will have been threatened—and for no good reason because, as the figures show, Australian consumers are currently paying less for books than their counterparts in the United States and in the United Kingdom. This is a bill looking for a problem to solve.18:15:009920Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Bill 2002. This bill is another demonstration of the coalition government's willingness to act in the best interests of consumers, the education sector and business. The member for Barton has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading. As previously intimated, the government will not support that amendment.Those opposed to the bill have said that it is driven by ideology. They suggest that there has been insufficient research or, alternatively, that we have ignored or misinterpreted the research. On the contrary, we have had the research. We have had numerous inquiries by bodies well qualified to undertake them—most recently by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The ACCC has been criticised for its conclusions, and its data has been subject to criticism by those opposed to this policy. Yet, at every point, the data has been shown to be verifiable and done on a valid comparative basis. The industry data has never been questioned, so it appears, by opposition members. The extraordinary pricing claims based on this data must give rise to a question mark when the data is used to criticise the ACCC results. The ACCC analysis was undertaken over the long term, and it is careful and detailed. It demonstrates that there have been significant differences of pricing in relation to books and software over a significant period of time.Turning to our experience in this country, we have seen a result in the area of sound recordings. No matter how the information is presented, there has been no sign of the catastrophic effect on that industry that was predicted by the opposition. Lower prices are shown to be available now that there is an alternative means of supply. Those opposite have raised the issue of piracy. The industry's own data shows a decline in the level of software piracy. Australia has close to the lowest piracy rates in the world. Business software piracy estimates have reduced from 32 or 33 per cent to 27 per cent. For sound recordings, the industry figures have remained unchanged, showing Australian levels of sound recording piracy to be below 10 per cent of retail sales. There is also the example of New Zealand, where there has been a declining rate of software piracy since the introduction of parallel importation. So, on the figures provided by the industry, there is no increase; there is a decline in business software piracy. This bears out that the link between parallel importation and piracy, if it exists at all, is weak. We have not simply rested on that. In practical terms, the government have moved to improve dialogue and liaison between industry enforcement bodies and government enforcement agencies. The member for Barton also referred to the dumping of foreign printed books in Australia. The member for Fremantle made a similar reference. However, it has been shown time and time again why such a fear is unjustified and unfounded. To the extent that there may be an impact, it is not likely to affect most Australian authors. It is also claimed that this measure will be detrimental to the local software development industry. This does not follow. Most packaged software in Australia is imported. Australia is a net importer of information technology, and this legislation is part of an integrated strategy that will assist in supporting Australia's growing information and communications technology sector. The bill will enable improvement in the cost of information technology for such Australian businesses, as well as businesses generally, to the extent that prices are cheaper in other jurisdictions. It will introduce a much bigger market for competitive behaviour. Local software producers generally operate in niche markets and few, if any, are likely to find competing copies of their material being brought in. As distributors of foreign software, they would continue to be able to act as local representatives of a foreign software producer.In conclusion, this bill, along with a range of other adjustments to the copyright legislation in the last few years, improves the balance of the copyright law. It responds to changing circumstances and maintains the credibility of copyright by giving consumers and users generally a wider choice for their purchases. That wider choice is consistent with the reality of the modern world, where software, music, many publications and even some books can be as easily downloaded from an Internet site as acquired from a shop in a shopping complex or a stall in a market. Support for this legislation demonstrates an awareness of the specific economic circumstances of this jurisdiction and a willingness to allow alternative sources of supply, as with other products, to achieve a better outcome for consumers, businesses and the whole of the affected industries. As I said earlier, the government does not support the amendment put by the member for Barton to the second reading motion. I commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McClelland's amendment) stand part of the question.18:25:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Hawker) 76Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.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.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.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.59Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Katter, R.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.Original question agreed to.Bill read a second time.9922Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney—Attorney-General) (6.33 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Sitting suspended from 6.33 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills9922R16019922Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion by Dr Kemp:That this bill be now read a second time.20:00:009922Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 aims to improve the administrative integrity, effectiveness and efficiency of the Renewable Energy Electricity Act 2000. That act established the mandatory renewable energy target, frequently referred to by people who are interested in these things as the MRET, of an additional 9,500 megawatts of renewable energy by 2010. This is the only mandatory greenhouse abatement measure introduced by the Howard government, which often uses it to demonstrate its alleged commitment to greenhouse abatement. We supported passage of the original legislation. We raised a number of concerns about that legislation and they continue to be of concern to us. I will come to those later. This bill is specifically seeking to clarify definitions used in the act, including the definition of eligible renewable energy sources and the components of a power station. It seeks to clarify the provisions in relation to a relevant acquisition of electricity to ensure that only one entity is made liable in relation to the purchase of a particular quantum of electricity. Further, it seeks to clarify the provisions with respect to the claiming of renewable energy certificates associated with solar water heaters and to expedite the process by which certificates can be claimed for new solar water heater models as they become commercially available. The bill seeks to provide the Renewable Energy Regulator with the power to vary a number of assessments and determinations under the act, including the energy acquisition statement, the renewable energy shortfall statement and the 1997 eligible renewable energy baselines for accredited power stations. It also seeks to provide the Renewable Energy Regulator with information-gathering powers to enable effective monitoring and compliance with the provisions of the legislation and to allow for the suspension of an accredited power station under a number of circumstances, including where there is thought to be `gaming', whereby power station outputs are manipulated to increase the number of renewable energy certificates that can be created without increasing the actual renewable energy generation.The government's proposed amendments represent an improvement to the MRET scheme and Labor will be supporting them, but they are not substantive in nature and they do not really address the deficiencies in the mandatory renewable energy target. The original bill—and it is worth taking the House back to this—sought to accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid based applications so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; as part of a broader strategic package, to stimulate renewables and provide an ongoing base for the development of commercially competitive renewable energy; and to contribute to the development of internationally competitive industries which could participate effectively in the burgeoning Asian energy market. Before I talk about what I see as the government's failure in addressing those quite laudable objectives of the original bill, I want to take the House to some of the places around the world where a more serious, more realistic and more forward-looking approach has been taken to the question of renewable energy. In Europe we find that a recent European Union project pulling together 11 specific sectoral studies has concluded that reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent by the year 2010 would generate about two million net jobs across Europe. This is because most of the changes provide extra jobs. Public transport provides more jobs than private transport, efficiency improvements provide more jobs than energy production, and cycleways, footpaths and so on are more labour intensive than roads. If applied to Australia, this translates to 100,000 jobs. The European Union initiatives include renewable energy targets, so Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, recently announced a new renewable energy goal for the 15-nation European Union of 22 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010. To achieve this goal the European Commission allocated $2 billion for research over the next five years to sustainable energy projects—a twentyfold increase over the last five years. In the United Kingdom the government has the objective of getting 10 per cent electricity from renewables by 2010 and 20 per cent electricity from renewables by 2020. The British Wind Energy Association says offshore wind alone will create 19,000 jobs and the UK's first wind turbine plant, a $30 million project, provides 170 jobs. In the USA, in California there is a target of 20 per cent electricity from renewables. That will provide 28,000 job years in construction and 3,000 permanent operating jobs—four times the jobs of the same power generation from gas turbines. For the USA as a whole, a high energy efficiency scenario could produce a net gain of 1.1 million jobs by 2010, and if such a scenario were translated to Australia you would get 70,000 new jobs overall. The United States Solar Industries Association make the point that energy conservation and solar energy create four times as many jobs as using oil, gas or electricity for energy needs and that solar thermal power plants create 2½ times as many skilled, high-paying jobs as fossil fuel power stations. From this I think the message is clear: development of the renewable energy industry means both reduced greenhouse gas emissions and more jobs. Australia is uniquely placed, with ample supplies of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, to lead the world. I also make the point that many of the jobs created from harnessing this clean energy can occur in regional Australia, and I believe that renewable energy projects should be developed as a matter of priority in regional Australia and that that is where the scope for these projects most successfully lies. Such an approach would give us a smooth transition to an energy mix that has an increased market share of renewables and, as the above examples demonstrate, would provide more jobs overall for regional Australia. In Australia, one of our greatest opportunities lies with wind power. There is now 25 gigawatts of wind power installed worldwide. In Denmark, which has been leading the way in this area, 20,000 jobs have been created, mainly through turbine construction; in the USA, there have been 70,000 jobs created, mainly through the installation of wind infrastructure. In Australia, we have 100 megawatts installed, creating about 800 job years worth of work, with an additional 300 megawatts committed and an additional 1,500 megawatts planned by 2005, which means an additional 10,000 job years over the course of the next three years. If we are able to up our wind power generation to, for example, three gigawatts, we get 13,000 job years plus 850 permanent jobs in maintenance and operation and, of course, there is potential to go even higher than that. Reasonably recently we saw the approval of the country's largest wind farm, with the Victorian government approving the development of a $270 million, 180-megawatt wind farm at Portland in western Victoria. That project has the potential to deliver 2,000 jobs in regional areas. There is a lot of potential for wind farm projects in Victoria, and I think the Victorian government should be congratulated for recognising the important role that wind energy will play in the state's economy and for recognising the need for clear planning guidelines. I believe that there is great scope in this area to ensure that clean, renewable energy projects such as the one at Portland are developed.Let us look at the area of solar cells or photovoltaics. Ten years ago there were only 50 megawatts of solar cells or photovoltaics installed worldwide; this year there are 400 megawatts of solar cells or photovoltaics worldwide. The prices are now one-tenth of what they were 10 years ago as economies of scale increase and the technology matures. In the USA, this has translated into a $2 billion-a-year industry, now employing 25,000 people. The projections are for the installation of solar cells to grow to two gigawatts by 2010 and to grow dramatically thereafter to 12 gigawatts by 2020. In Australia, 33 megawatts were installed in 2001, creating 600 direct jobs. Manufacturing capacity is planned to grow from 20 megawatts to between 100 and 120 megawatts by 2010. If we can get these current growth rates to continue, there will be more jobs—more jobs in regional areas.Another area I want to touch on is energy efficiency potential. A report has been released as part of Energy South Australia's demand side management plan, highlighting the potential for South Australia to improve energy efficiency by at least 20 per cent over a 20-year period. Based on international and interstate experience, we can achieve this using cost-effective energy measures. If these energy measures were to be scaled up across the country, using the South Australian example we could look forward to between 10,000 and 30,000 jobs nationally. Similarly, with solar hot water: we have got Australia's largest manufacturer employing 150 people and supplying approximately three per cent of all homes, and if we could expand this we could get many more direct jobs and get that significant impact on reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. We need to understand the potential for solar direct hot water manufacturing; it creates 9.9 jobs per million dollars of annual spending, so if we were making and installing 10 million solar hot water systems a year we would employ twice as many people as we do making eight million cars.I turn now to what the Howard government has been doing. Despite exciting developments undertaken around the globe and the incredible potential for renewable energy to dramatically increase its share of energy generation in this country, it is clear that the Howard government has failed to seize its opportunity. The example of solar cells demonstrates how, under the Howard government, Australia, rather than being a world leader, has been slipping behind. If we look at the 2001 national survey of photovoltaics, we find that back in 1996 we led the world in per capita manufacture of photovoltaic systems and, although we had an increase from 7.5 megawatts to 10 megawatts capacity over the past five years, we fell behind Japan and Spain in per capita manufacture of photovoltaic systems. Japan now dominates the manufacture of these products. Our relative share of photovoltaic usage fell 50 per cent between 1996 and 2000. The uptake of photovoltaics is greatest in the USA and European countries where subsidies are making PV manufacture competitive with residential electricity prices. In my book, there is potential for an extra 10 million grid-connected rooftop systems in Australia. The example of solar cells is just one of a range of failures in the area of renewable energy. Analysis undertaken by the Business Council for Sustainable Energy has revealed that, far from the MRET delivering an additional two per cent market share of renewable energy, which is what the government said it would do, renewables will struggle to maintain their present market share of total electricity generation. That two per cent target was revised by the government and converted into a target of 9,500 gigawatt hours. The latest electricity generation projections developed for the Greenhouse Office show that electricity generation in 2010 is projected to be 270,000 gigawatt hours. So as a consequence, instead of being a two per cent additional target, which it was supposed to be, it is really a miserly half a per cent target. As noted by the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, this is merely maintaining the 1996-97 market share; it is a long way short of the two per cent increase that was intended by the measure.We can do a lot better than this. A very significant report released recently by Origin Energy blew out of the water claims that cutting greenhouse gas emissions would lead to substantial increases in electricity costs. That report was done by McLennan Magasanik Associates, and it assessed the impact on electricity prices of renewable energy and gas-fired generation. They concluded that the increase in electricity prices as a result of increasing the renewable energy target would be very small, that it would have a minimal impact on the cost competitiveness of Australian industries that are energy intensive and that Australia would remain amongst the countries with the lowest electricity prices. That research backed up modelling by the New South Wales Treasury which suggested that Australia could indeed meet its Kyoto target—that is, an eight per cent greenhouse gas emission increase between 1990 and 2008-12—without a significant rise in electricity prices for industrial consumers. We have also seen work done by the Tariff Network of Experts, who also concluded that an increase in the MRET would have a very minor impact on electricity prices.Those reports completely undermined the claim by ABARE, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, that energy prices would rise dramatically if we were to ratify the Kyoto protocol and meet our target. Let me add that the Howard government claims it is going to meet the target in any event. Frankly, some of the contributions by ABARE cast doubt on the independence of its analysis concerning the economic implications of ratifying the Kyoto protocol. In addition to the government's failure in these areas, a recently released report of the COAG Energy Market Review Panel, chaired by former Liberal minister Warwick Parer, recommended that MRET be abolished altogether. This is an irresponsible recommendation. It has destabilised what is a fledgling growth industry which has been making investment decisions on the basis of certain expectations. It has generated an issue of sovereign risk. The report has also recommended replacing the Queensland 13 per cent gas scheme and the New South Wales benchmarks with an emissions trading regime. It seems to me that the MRET can play and needs to play a very important role in Australia meeting its obligation to contain greenhouse gas emissions.It is unfortunately the case that this government has been completely indifferent to its obligations internationally. The latest projections announced by the government back in August said we are around three per cent above the Kyoto target. The government not only is not meeting its Kyoto obligations but also is unwilling to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Along with the United States, it is doing its best to scuttle and undermine that collective international effort to tackle climate change. As a result, Australian companies will be prevented from gaining important overseas business opportunities to both develop new projects overseas and sell abatement to Europe and Japan. Regrettably, the government has not only shown indifference to meeting the target and tried to undermine it internationally but also been effectively undermining the work of the Australian Greenhouse Office. The former head of the Australian Greenhouse Office, Gwen Andrews, made comments recently that the government's own economic studies showed that promising to meet the Kyoto target while not ratifying the Kyoto protocol `was not an optimal policy position' because it shuts Australia out of the trading mechanism and opportunities which the protocol establishes. If the government were fair dinkum about these matters, it would accept the advice of the former head of its own Greenhouse Office and move to ratify the protocol. It is also a matter of concern to me that Gwen Andrews has suggested that the most recent figures show greenhouse emissions now being projected to exceed 1990 levels by 14 per cent—that is, six per cent more than the Kyoto target and double the blow-out predicted by the environment minister in August. Those projections show that the government's strategy to curb greenhouse gas emissions is an abject failure.Instead of acting positively to address these issues, the government has allowed the Australian Greenhouse Office to descend into drift and chaos. Since Gwen Andrews and her deputy left the Greenhouse Office way back in April, the government has not moved to advertise those positions and replace them. In the meantime, it implemented a review of the Greenhouse Office, which was conducted by former Liberal minister Warwick Smith. That review was presented back at the end of June, but the government refuses to make it public. What sort of transparency do we have here? While the Greenhouse Office goes round and round in circles—rudderless, no leadership, no performance—the government simply sits on the report by Warwick Smith which many believe recommends that the office be abolished as an independent agency and absorbed into the Environment Australia department. That would be a most unsatisfactory situation. Certainly the opposition do not support it. We take it as indicating a lack of bona fides on the part of the government concerning climate change issues. I call on Minister Kemp, as I have done previously, to remove the uncertainty over the future of the Greenhouse Office by making public the Smith report and moving to ensure that the Greenhouse Office leadership is re-established so it is able to do the job it was established—with a great deal of fanfare and trumpeting on the part of this government—to do.I turn from the government's failures to what Labor would do. The Origin Energy report that I just referred to, Incremental electricity supply costs from additional renewable and gas-fired generation in Australia, provides us all with a detailed assessment of the cost impact on Australia's electricity supply arising from specific policies that would increase the mandated renewable energy target, the MRET, to five per cent—indeed to 10 per cent in the Origin Energy survey—by the year 2010.One of the report's key findings was that, for every five per cent increase in the MRET, the average cost to the wholesale market was of the order of $1 per megawatt hour, or 0.1c per kilowatt hour. This impact is lower than many of the regular wholesale price movements within the national electricity market and certainly much less than the currency fluctuations, so it clearly indicates that our greenhouse emissions could be substantially reduced at a modest cost to the electricity supply industry and without damage to our relative international competitiveness. The report indicates that moving to a five per cent MRET would enable us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by one per cent—that is, it would go one-third of the way towards meeting that gap of between eight per cent and 11 per cent.Labor believes that MRET is vital to the development of the renewable energy industry and to reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Labor will not scrap MRET, which the government report recommends; we will increase the renewable energy target to five per cent by 2010. There is research available to demonstrate that increasing the target to five per cent would boost local renewable energy production, it would help us to achieve our Kyoto target by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and it would build a sustainable renewable energy industry for the future. This is an achievable, workable and significant target. It is an important step, and it represents a significant improvement on the present regime. There has also been discussion, in the context of renewable energy, about whether the target is designed to support new capacity or whether it is equally valid for existing generation. There have been concerns raised that the financial benefit of the measure should reward only new investment in renewable generation for both existing and new generators. Labor notes that the government has announced the MRET review—the Minister for the Environment and Heritage announced this last week. I believe that this is an appropriate issue to be considered by the MRET review.There was also a fair bit of debate, when the original legislation went through, about the use of native forest biomass. Concerns were expressed about the difficulty in defining waste. Timber that is not to be harvested often has high biodiversity and habitat value. There were concerns about the difficulty in limiting use to legitimate waste, the potential for an increase in overall harvesting due to the added economic incentives associated with the renewable energy certificates as biomass extractions, not limited under the RFAs, and the impact on greenhouse emissions.I believe that this is an issue that should be examined by the forthcoming review. Some of the things that the review should examine are whether the MRET should be five per cent or a higher figure; whether there is a genuine problem regarding the baselines and unders-and-overs for existing hydrogenerators and, if so, how it should be resolved; whether the use of native forest residue would have a significant adverse effect on forest biodiversity, increase its greenhouse gas emissions or lead to an unsustainable increase in biomass from native forests; and the proper role of plantations and whether it is appropriate that they are excluded from the MRET definition. These are all things that the government's MRET review needs to consider.The reason we need to have a renewable energy industry in this country is that the world's past energy patterns are unsustainable. We are already suffering some of the impacts of this in climate change around the world, including here in Australia. At question time, the Prime Minister talked about government initiatives to assist people who are adversely affected by the drought. If we do not take action to tackle climate change and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the CSIRO projections are that there will be more severe and more frequent droughts in years to come. We will see not only droughts but more frequent and more severe bushfires, floods and cyclones. We have already seen the impact of climate change, with coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. We see it in the projections for reduced snow cover and increased `natural' disasters, which should be referred to as climate disasters or greenhouse disasters. If the Howard government is concerned about the plight of farmers and the impact of drought, it would get serious about tackling climate change. It would ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change. It would not seek to scrap the renewable energy target and to undermine that push into renewable energy. It would seek to build on that work.The government's renewable energy policy is a `tale of two Warwicks'. Warwick Smith has been doing the review of the Australian Greenhouse Office and Warwick Parer has been doing the energy review. What do these two men have in common? Firstly, they are both former Liberal ministers in the Howard government—that seems to be a good way to get a gig carrying out an `independent' review. Secondly, their first name is Warwick—that apparently helps too if you want to get a job doing a review. Thirdly, they are both doing a hatchet job on the only things that this government has ever done to tackle climate change—on the one hand it established the Australian Greenhouse Office, and on the other hand it established the mandatory renewable energy target. In this case it is not `Alas, poor Warwick'; it is `Alas, poor sustainable energy future for this country,' and `Alas, poor renewable energy industry.' There is a clear policy difference between our policy and the policy of the government in relation to climate change and renewable energy. We support action to tackle climate change and we support action to promote a renewable energy industry. The policy of the government is to scuttle and undermine renewable energy in this country.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPUK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—The minister interjects. Regrettably, it is the states that have had to show leadership in tackling climate change. You have seen initiatives from Bob Carr, Steve Bracks, Mike Rann and others in the face of a lack of national leadership and a lack of national energy policy. There has been a lack of seriousness in combating climate change, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and putting this country on a sustainable energy path that promotes those renewable energy industries that have a great future in providing jobs, investment and future economic development for this nation. (Time expired)20:30:009928Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—I am delighted to be speaking on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002. This bill will strengthen legislation which is at the core of the government's commitment to increasing renewable energy use. I do not think there would be anyone in this House who would say that Australia should not be reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As a nation which has a long history of producing energy through the emission of greenhouse gases, I am pleased to see this government taking a leading role in introducing measures that are looked upon as models for the rest of the world when it comes to reducing our emissions. I am also pleased to see that this government recognises not only the benefits of increasing the use of renewable energy but also that any measures introduced have to take into account our existing markets, which are a significant part of our economy and employment.Representing a seat which is based partly in the Hunter Valley means that I am very familiar with the natural resources that Australia has, which have created employment for generations of families in this country. An example of this is coal and the port of Newcastle is the world's largest coal export port. Thousands of people in the Hunter Valley work in the coalmining industry and the region has a long history of open-cut and underground mines. My own electorate has the Stratford mine. The Hunter region also has a number of power stations including Bayswater, Liddell and Redbank. But the ALP's ongoing campaign for Australia to sign the Kyoto protocol threatens jobs in the electricity and coal industries.The opposition has failed to recognise that ratifying the Kyoto protocol will damage Australian business and Australian jobs. It will impose legal obligations on our industries which our competitors overseas will not have and it will threaten investment decisions. Given the level of foreign investment in industries such as gas, alumina and aluminium production, coal and metals processing, and its importance in the Australian economy, it is a point that must be taken very seriously. We cannot afford to give a message to foreign investors that if they decide to invest here they run the risk of doing so with legal obligations that their competitors in other regions of the world do not have. This will threaten local industries that are based in regional areas and provide regional employment. Professor Warwick McKibbin states: ... the sum of the future costs to Australia of ratifying Kyoto far outweigh the sum of the future costs of not ratifying. More importantly there is a great deal of uncertainty about the extent of these costs ... Even our most optimistic assumptions support the government's decision about the long term costs of ratification. A key finding is that Australia needs to convince the rest of the world to try an alternative approach to Kyoto because Kyoto is clearly not in Australia's economic interest.Our government has taken these factors into consideration and it believes that it is far more beneficial to design long-term measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that have a global approach. We should not forget the fact that the Kyoto protocol will make barely one per cent difference to global greenhouse gas emissions, that it fails to cover 75 per cent of global greenhouse emissions and that it does not involve developing countries. This in itself has tremendous problems, given that emissions coming from developing countries will be greater than those coming from developed countries in the next decade. The Labor Party's failure to come together on this issue was clearly demonstrated in September when the Queensland Premier endorsed the government's decision not to ratify the Kyoto protocol. He did that because he knows that ratification will risk jobs and investment in his state. In an interview he was quoted as saying:There's only one state in Australia that would be advantaged economically by the Kyoto Protocols and that's NSW. I understand Bob's position but he is the only Australian Premier that wins from it.I dispute the suggestion that New South Wales would win from the Kyoto protocol ratification, particularly when we look at the industries based in the Hunter region involved in energy and aluminium production. All of these industries rely heavily on electricity production and the effects of the Kyoto protocol would be devastating. On one hand you have a state premier saying that ratification is not good for his state and should not be done; on the other hand you have the federal Leader of the Opposition joining the Kyoto bandwagon saying that the government should ratify it. That is showing that the opposition is not listening to businesses and it is not looking at the long-term viability of our local industries and local jobs, in particular in regional areas. It is failing to look at the issue of how to balance the needs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions with our own economic, business, emerging technology and employment needs.When it comes to introducing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Australia has been a world leader. It was the coalition that established the Australian Greenhouse Office, which is the world's only national greenhouse dedicated agency responsible for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Investments include up to $114 million for the development and commercialisation of renewable energy; $31 million for the use of photovoltaic systems on residential buildings and community-use buildings; and up to an additional $179 million for the use of renewable energy for remote power generation. The government has also made a commitment to increase electricity from renewable resources from 10 to 12 per cent by 2010; accelerated reforms to improve the efficiency of energy production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; introduced the mandatory labelling of fuel efficiency for cars; implemented energy efficient building codes and standards and the $400 million Greenhouse Gas Abatement program, which will result in maximum emission reductions or sink enhancements; and last, but not least, provided $75 million in support for conversions and alternative fuels for commercial vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, trains and ferries. These measures clearly show that this government is taking the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions very seriously and is doing so with a view to long-term solutions. Industry within Australia is also going a long way to develop new technologies to tap into renewable energy.We are all familiar with the various alternatives available in renewable energy, including wind, water and solar power. Here in Australia, companies are developing technology around these basic alternatives, and they are coming up with amazing projects that have received funding and support from this government. Under the renewable energy industry program, CityPower in Victoria received a grant for a project which involved the installation of at least 50 grid-connected rooftop systems. The project was aimed at using these systems in domestic and small-scale commercial areas for the supply of electricity into the grid. Integral Energy in NSW received a grant for its Environmental Strategies Program, which aims to develop long-term business success for small and medium sized Australian manufacturers of renewable energy products, particularly in the South Pacific and South-East Asia. Solahart Industries received a grant for the commercialisation of an advanced pressed tray collector for solar hot water systems, aimed at tapping into the European market. The Sugar Research Institute and the Mackay Sugar Cooperative received a grant which went into a project that would improve the capacity and efficiency of existing boilers fired by bagasse, which is a biomass waste by-product in sugar mills. This project expands the potential of bagasse as a source of green energy. Ocean Power Technologies received funding for the construction and installation of a wave power generation system. It involves a generator, which looks like a large buoy and is moored off the Victorian coast. It generates renewable power for transmission to the mainland. Biomass Energy Services received a grant for a project that involves harvesting and processing noxious weeds and turning them into a solid and gaseous green energy. These amazing ideas are coming out of Australia, and they have the potential to be sold overseas. All this also shows the type of innovation that exists in this country and how we can tap into this innovation and create jobs from it. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 was a world-leading piece of legislation, and a number of countries have used it as a model for promoting renewable energy through a market based trading system. The act implements the mandatory energy target, which currently prescribes that an additional 9,500 gigawatt hours of electricity per year must be generated from renewable sources by 2010. This will result in annual greenhouse gas emission reductions of around seven million tonnes. Since coming into force on 1 April 2001, the act has performed strongly, with some 170 power stations accredited, representing a broad diversity of eligible renewable energy sources and technologies throughout the country. The first year's interim target of 300,000 renewable energy certificates, which represents 300,000 megawatt hours of renewables based electricity generation—or displacement in the case of solar water heaters—was met comfortably. So the measures introduced by this government are working, and they are going a long way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.The administrative amendments contained in the bill we are discussing today will also provide for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of the legislation. The scope of the amendments relates to the clarification of definitions, including those related to eligible renewable energy sources, components of a power station and relevant acquisitions of electricity and penalty charges, and the capacity of the Renewable Energy Regulator to vary decisions, including those related to energy acquisition statements, energy shortfall statements and the 1997 eligible renewable energy baseline for an accredited power station. This action may be at the regulator's own instigation or at the instigation of the liable party and it will be exercised in a limited number of circumstances.The scope of the amendments also relates to the introduction of information-gathering powers to underpin the monitoring, auditing and compliance requirements of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2002 and to bring this legislation into line with similar pieces of Commonwealth legislation; the extension of authorised officers to include officers appointed by the Commonwealth and by state and territory governments; the capacity of the Renewable Energy Regulator to suspend entitlements, including the accreditation of a power station, in a number of limited circumstances; and, finally, the inclusion of administrative review provisions covering decisions by the Renewable Energy Regulator to take action to vary or suspend. This bill is full of positive measures that will benefit the environment and the industry alike. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.20:41:009930Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—It is always a great pleasure to follow the member for Paterson, who is a great defender of the environment. In fact, in his own electorate, where he is a local councillor, he has been a great defender of the environment in terms of local environmental plans. For example, there are height limits on developments around the beautiful Port Stephens area, although I have noted—by way of newspaper reports and other information—that the member for Paterson is not so concerned about the environmental aspects of his electorate when it comes to the building of his own residential place. Apparently up on Lily Pily Hill he is building a home which the local newspapers have described as quite grand, although it does not quite— LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Where is the relevance in the argument that the member for Hunter is putting forward?10000Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)—I draw the member for Hunter's attention to the question of relevance and ask him to stick to the issues under debate.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did point out that this is a debate about the environment, and I was just making the point that the member for Paterson can be quite hypocritical in terms of his commitment to the environment. He becomes an active campaigner on local environmental issues on all occasions other than those occasions when his own home is involved. It is a residential development which I understand is somewhat outside the conditions and consent for it has been given by the local council, of which he himself is a member.I listened with great interest to the member for Paterson's contribution to the debate and it was fairly typical of his style. It was well written by someone in his office but it failed to grasp the key issues within the debate surrounding the mandatory renewable energy targets. Although he spent most of his time speaking about greenhouse gas emissions, which I accept are very relevant to this bill, he was quite ill-informed—not about the general concept of greenhouse gas emissions but about his own party's policy towards these challenging environmental concerns. The fact is that his own party's policy with respect to Kyoto is to commit all the industries he was talking about to the same targets but not to give them the opportunity an international carbon trading system presents. So the member for Paterson and his party want to present the industries he referred to, including the coal industry and the coal-fired power generation industry, with the same targets, but they do not want to deliver to them the benefits that the ratification of the Kyoto protocol would deliver. The member for Paterson has shown a total lack of understanding of the issues there.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—Why don't you support Hunter jobs and the aluminium industry?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I am happy to support Hunter jobs, of course, but, unlike those who stick their head in the sand, I acknowledge that environmental concerns will put increasing pressure on power stations fuelled by fossil fuels. My own electorate is the powerhouse of New South Wales, generating about 80 per cent of the state's energy needs. But, over time, those power generators will reach capacity. The fact is that, if the Hunter wants to remain the powerhouse of New South Wales, it is going to have to diversify. There will not be any more coal-fired power generators under the Howard government or any Labor government, and the member for Paterson obviously has not yet realised that. If the Hunter wants to remain the powerhouse of New South Wales in energy terms, it does need to diversify and to begin to develop alternative forms of power generation—not as a replacement of the current generation capacity of the Hunter but as an enhancement of it. In other words, with energy consumption growing at about three per cent per annum, those power stations will reach capacity and we need to now start thinking about developing alternative forms of power generation.I will return to the bill and leave the member for Paterson alone for a moment, but I eagerly await some further interjections. This bill seeks to amend the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, which requires electricity retailers and other large buyers of electricity to collectively source an additional 9,500 gigawatts per annum of electricity from renewable sources by 2010. We often hear those figures bandied around. How do people get some concept of what 9,500 gigawatts mean? It might help those following the debate if I said that that is almost the equivalent of what the island of Tasmania produces in power in any given year. It is quite a large amount of energy. The measure was designed to push the level of renewables based electricity generation from 10.7 per cent in the late 1990s to the projected 12.7 per cent by 2010. It was designed to increase investment in the renewables sector, and it was estimated to potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around seven million tonnes per annum by the year 2010. This is a Howard government initiative, which we on this side were happy to support, and yet the member for Paterson suggests that a shift towards a greater investment in renewables is a bad thing! This is an initiative of his own government. But, at the same time, having acknowledged the success—and we have acknowledged the success—of the scheme, his party now wants to abolish the MRET bill. So just discount everything he said about the benefits of the bill; he wants to abolish what we believe is a very important initiative. The scheme requires liable entities to surrender to the Renewable Energy Regulator sufficient tradable renewable energy certificates to cover their required purchases of electricity generated from renewable sources. The purpose of RECs is to enable liable entities to avoid or adjust the amount of any renewable energy shortfall charge that they would otherwise have to pay when they acquire electricity from non-renewable sources. The current bill amends the 2000 act to clarify key definitions in the original legislation and to provide for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of the legislation. The implementation of the legislation by the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator has revealed a number of minor deficiencies in the operation of the legislation which collectively need to be addressed to ensure the maintenance of the integrity of the legislation and the full achievement of its objectives. The amendments contained in the bill are, as I said, administrative in nature, and include a clarification of definitions, including those related to eligible renewable energy sources, components of power stations, relevant acquisitions of electricity and penalty charges; the capacity of the Renewable Energy Regulator to vary decisions; the introduction of information-gathering powers to underpin the monitoring, auditing and compliance requirements of the act; the extension of authorised offices to include officers' appointments by the Commonwealth and by state and territory governments; the capacity of the Renewable Energy Regulator to suspend entitlements, including the accreditation of a power station in a number of limited circumstances; and, finally, the inclusion of an administrative review provision covering decisions by the Renewable Energy Regulator to take action to vary or suspend.The regulator has indicated that, in the act's first year of operation, approximately 600,000 RECs were generated, about twice the 2001 target. This is undoubtedly sound evidence that the MRET scheme is proving successful in driving industry investment, including around $1 billion worth of investment being planned by Hydro Tasmania in both hydro and wind energy. I recently visited Tasmania to take a first-hand look at some of the very good work being done there, largely by Hydro Tasmania but also by a number of other operators, including Pacific Hydro.I visited the Poatina power station in the electorate of Lyons, where I not only saw plans for improved hydro generation efficiency but also learned about the member for Lyons' childhood in that area. As a young lad, he was very active in the bush and was able to see, later in life, the construction of that particular power station. Since my visit to his electorate, we know where the member for Lyons gets his bush skills. I also visited the electorate of the member for Braddon, who joins us in the House today. In particular, I visited the Woolnorth wind farm. There I learned of the potential to significantly enhance the economy of Tasmania with a renewed commitment to the renewables sector. Tasmania, with its imminent entry into the national electricity market, has some fantastic opportunities. Those opportunities are being backed by the local members.There is a fantastic opportunity to grow significant jobs in those areas, particularly in the electorate of Braddon, not only where there are jobs being made in direct generation but also where there are great opportunities for jobs in the manufacturing, for example, of wind turbines—an area where I know the member for Braddon has been particularly active. So there are some great opportunities for Tasmania and some great opportunities being posed by its imminent entry into the national electricity market. This is what amazes me about the Parer review of energy markets. The Parer review dudded Tasmania by totally ignoring the renewables sector and by proposing the abolition of MRETs. Parer says we will move to a national carbon trading scheme, which is interesting, and something that the Labor Party has always promoted and supported. But the fact is that the renewables sector will need something more than that, because a national trading scheme will be of greatest benefit to the traditional industries. I have many of those traditional industries in my electorate, and I do not have a problem with that. That reflects Warwick Parer's background. I heard the shadow minister for the environment making this point earlier. This is a report for the insiders. It enhances current generation capacity but ignores the needs of states like Tasmania and other regional areas that are looking to make a go of the newfound interest in the renewables sector. I said some time ago that the real test for the Parer committee was fivefold. First, does it offer sufficient consumer protection and guarantee affordable supplies of energy for Australian families? The answer is no. Second, does it guarantee long-term energy supply security and competitively priced power for the development of Australian industries and jobs? Again, the answer is no. Third, does it provide effective mechanisms for encouraging greater investment in the renewables sector? I have already made the point: the answer is no. Fourth—and I think this is the most important point about Parer—does it deal with energy policy on a fully integrated basis? That is, does it go to upstream issues, including market concentration and self-sufficiency; export markets; taxation; the domestic market—all the way from the oil or gas field and electricity generators through to transmission, distribution, and transport, industry and residential consumption; fuel mix, including alternative fuel technologies; environmental issues; and fossil fuel sustainability? It does none of this. Fifth—last but not least—does it offer achievable objectives in terms of agreements with the states? Of course it does not.This is a report designed to do one thing: set up the Howard government for a `blame the states' approach to energy policy in this country. In other words, it designs a framework which it knows will be totally unacceptable to the states, so that every issue that emerges in energy policy over the next two years or so can be blamed entirely on the states. That is the plan for Warwick Parer; that is the brief he was given by the Howard government. It is a very disappointing brief. Certainly the recommendation for the abolition of MRETs is a silly and ill-conceived one. I support what the shadow minister for the environment has put forward as a proposition: an increase in the MRET, not an abolition. We know that the target was originally two per cent. When we factor in the significant growth in energy consumption in the period between then and now, we know that it will deliver something much less than two per cent.The energy sector plays a critical role in the Australian economy. It heavily influences economic performance, international competitiveness and, therefore, Australian living standards. The development of a national energy policy is crucial to Australia's economic and social wellbeing—a policy that provides competitively priced, secure, diverse, sustainable and environmentally sound sources of energy in a manner which delivers maximum benefit to all Australians. We all acknowledge the inherent complexities of the industry and the problems they create in terms of policy choices. Policy change in one area has important flow-on effects for the rest of the sector, the broader economy and the community. Moreover, it is not a static sector; continues to change and develop in ways that have implications for all energy users, suppliers and stakeholders. The energy policy debate is marked by great conflict: conflict between economic output and the environment, conflict between fossil fuel dependence and the use of renewable energy sources, conflict between government revenue and investment incentives, conflict between regulation and market forces and the impacts they have on investment.These are trade-offs, and this takes me to the interjections I heard coming from the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, who is sitting at the table. Of course I am committed to my electorate, which is significantly dependent on the production of electricity. It has a number of coalmines which supply coal to those electricity generators they are dependent on. But we must diversify. A real energy policy is an integrated one, which takes a national approach and which acknowledges both the need to concentrate very heavily on the cleaner and more efficient burning of our fossil fuels to make those industries sustainable—and that is what I am about in my own electorate—and at the same time that the world is changing. It should acknowledge—as I said earlier—that there will not be any more coal-fired power generators of any significant capacity installed in the Hunter or anywhere else in this country in the not too distant future. It will be important for us all to acknowledge those environmental pressures and to plan ahead to ensure that industries in areas like the Hunter and the Latrobe Valley, for example—in the electorate of the member for McMillan—are sustainable. That is getting the balance right. This is where the Parer review is so disappointing. It takes such a narrow approach to energy policy. It looks only at the immediate market issues surrounding electricity and gas, and it ignores the other issues—for example, the sustainability of fossil fuel use, interbasin competition in the gas sector, and upstream market concentration in the oil sector, particularly offshore. That brings me to the last point I want to make.I want to say something very quickly about the Bayu-Undan project in the Timor Sea. I have mentioned it in this place before, but it is of particular significance tonight and is certainly relevant to this bill and to the approach to energy policy in this country. This parliament now has four days to run this year if we are unlucky; it may be a couple more, but it is probably just four. It is a well-known fact that Phillips, the major venture partner in the Bayu-Undan project, has a contractual obligation to its Japanese contracts in terms of the LNG it intends to provide to that country. It is also a well-known fact that the ratification of the Timor Sea Treaty is a condition of that contract. It is a well-known fact that Phillips needs the ratification of that treaty in place by the end of this year, by 31 December. Yet with four sitting days to go, there is no prospect—given no legislation has even been introduced in this place—that that legislation could pass both houses of parliament in Canberra by 31 December. I am going to make an appeal to the Howard government tonight to put aside some of the interests of some of the venture partners in other areas and get on with the ratification of the Timor Sea Treaty so that Bayu-Undan gas can come on shore. That is not only in the national interest—and, in particular, in the interest of those who live in the Northern Territory—but also in the interest of our friends in East Timor who will heavily and urgently rely on the income stream which would come from that particular development.21:01:009934Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—It is a pleasure to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 tonight. We have had the shadow minister for the environment and the shadow minister for resources talking about the bill, and between them they could not muster a criticism of it. It surprises me that this debate has been so extended by a discussion about things, important as they are, that are somewhat peripheral to the bill before the House. This is a world-leading mechanism that we are debating tonight. There is some slight finetuning going on around definitions and some of the administrative arrangements, but what we are talking about is a world-leading reform that the Howard government has implemented. The reform was discussed with me when I was in the UK shortly after its introduction, and they were saying how substantially advanced and improved it was over what the United Kingdom was doing in this area. Since then, we have had interest in this mechanism from Belgium, Austria and several states in the United States, such as Texas and California. This is world-class stuff. It is a world-class innovation by the Howard government about how to use economic instruments, how to put incentives in place to bring about renewed investment and expanded generation capacity in the renewable energy sector. This is first-class legislation that is getting a slight tickle, a slight tidy up, with some clarification as a result of the more than one year's practical experience we have had with this measure. The opposition is sitting there somehow implying a criticism about this bill, when in fact the bill has overperformed. It has exceeded expectations, and thankfully the drafters and the policy developers within the Howard government and within the bureaucracy foreshadowed that capacity for overperformance and some capacity to bank RECs—the certificates that this measure generates—so they can be offset against other years within the 10-year period. So this is a celebration. Everyone is on board. Everyone is supportive. But those opposite are trying to use this as an opportunity to have a bit of a spray about a review that represents input to the Howard government. They are also trying to pre-empt the review about this renewable energy mechanism itself that was called only a week ago. How clever is that? How clever are the Labor Party by trying to have a spray about the Parer review and then foreshadow what the review that is already in place—it was foreshadowed when the legislation was passed—is now implementing in accordance with those undertakings? Not very clever at all is the answer, because the Labor Party are all talk and no policy on this area. As an example, we look at the Cunningham by-election, where some senior figures in the Labor Party were talking down the Kyoto protocol—they were pooh-poohing it. They were running around telling working men and women in the Cunningham electorate that the Kyoto protocol was bad news for their jobs and bad news for their community. But what also happened? There were others, such as the shadow minister, running around telling some of the Green interests within Cunningham: `The Labor Party are so on board. We're going to sign up to Kyoto. It's not going to do anything in the short term, but we're going to be on board. We're going to get on that train because we outsource our advice from overseas.' You have a protocol, a mechanism, that, if everybody fulfils their current obligations, will have a less than half of one per cent impact on the atmosphere. Those people in the Labor Party seem to forget that this is not just about creating economic instruments for the sake of it. This measure is part of the Prime Minister's 1997 Safeguarding the Future package of measures, which were announced before the negotiations on the Kyoto protocol, that were going to demonstrate in practical terms how Australia would meet its Kyoto commitments. I am confident we are on track to meet our Kyoto commitments. What I am not confident about is whether the international community and the Labor Party have the wit to realise what signing up blindly to the Kyoto commitment embraces. If every party under the current Kyoto protocol for the 2008-12 accounting period fulfilled their obligation, we would get a net reduction in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of less than half of one per cent. In technical terms, that is a poopteenth difference. That is if everybody fulfils their obligation under this protocol. There is a consensus within the scientific community that you need around a 40 per cent reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere to have any impact whatsoever on the climate. This is an eightyfold outcome over and above what is provided for in the first accounting period of the Kyoto protocol. What reckless individuals would look around to a nation whom they claim to represent—as the Labor Party claim to represent—and say: `Let's sign on to the Kyoto protocol. It's a cakewalk'? It might be well within our reach because of the action the Howard government has taken for the first accounting period, but that is not even a warm-up. The players have not even put their gear on. That is a less than half of one per cent change in the atmosphere when the scientists say that we need a 40 per cent reduction. So the key to these early debates in the Kyoto protocol is to get the architecture right—to get the design, the instruments and the mechanisms right—because those thinking people who examine this issue with some care and clarity realise that the first accounting period is not even a warm-up. It is not even practice season. It is one-eightieth of the effort required to get the outcome needed to make a positive difference to our atmosphere and our climate. That is the effort that is before us. The government is right and proper to try to insist that the international community confront the simple fact that the first accounting period of the Kyoto protocol makes no difference to our climate—none whatsoever. Therefore, some would say, as the Labor Party does: `Don't take it too seriously. Just hop on that train wherever it might take you. Wherever it might take you, let's be on that train, because that's clubby and we've outsourced our policy advice to international NGOs.' I do not think that is appropriate. In our circumstances, we know we have built an economic advantage on the basis of affordable and accessible energy. When the demands of the Kyoto protocol are ratchetted up to get somewhere towards the 80-times effort needed to make a difference in the atmosphere, we need to make sure with these changes that the rules are right, fair and equitable—and they are not at the moment. Why? Because half the world does not turn up. The developing countries, key trading competitors with our nation, have no obligation under the current framework—none whatsoever. They can take the intellectual property and the resources of developed countries and say, `Thank you very much; this is all very nice,' but they have no obligation to reduce their climate footprint. That is not right, that is not fair and it is certainly not appropriate if we are going to increase the effort under the protocol eightyfold in order to make a difference to the atmosphere.There is another area of importance. Some people run around and get stuck into the Americans, saying: `The Americans are out of the system. Isn't that terrible? We'll push on regardless.' Are they blind, indifferent or ignorant to the fact that those people claiming to be well placed to generate carbon sinks and carbon credits need someone to sell them to? If you get all hairy chested and leave the Americans out, half the population who would buy those certificates are not on the radar screen—they are not playing. So it is in everybody's interests, especially those who claim to be well placed to take advantage of the Kyoto protocol, to make sure the Americans are in. For those who just want to see a better outcome for the atmosphere, like me—free of all the other shenanigans going on—we want the Americans in as well, because they are major emitters. Just as we need the developing countries in, everybody needs to play if we are going to make a difference to our atmosphere and achieve the eightyfold increase in performance that is needed over and above the Kyoto protocol. The architecture matters. The engagement between Australia and the United States matters, because if we are not talking to the Americans then who is? They have some legitimate concerns, just as our nation has, with issues around carbon leakage and how we can continue to manufacture some of the best motor vehicles in the world. Labor are happy, under their vision for climate change, to have Korea and other developing countries bring their cars into our nation, free from worries about carbon emissions, when we have to worry about them. It is unfair, it costs jobs and it is why we need to be mindful about equalising those trade advantages.How clever are the Europeans? With the dirty industries of East Germany shut down, the Germans receive huge windfall gains. They can say: `Gee whiz, aren't we clever? We've done nothing in particular to address climate change; we've just coincidently had a transformation in the economy through German reunification.' With that windfall gain, they can be up-beat and push their case. But let us not miss the point that a strategic advantage in anybody's eyes is an advantage to be exploited. That is why some of our global trading competitors like to put pressure on Australia and other countries to play it by their rules: they see an advantage and are trying to take advantage of it for their citizens' benefit. And why wouldn't they? But it does not make it good policy and it does not make it right for everybody. So the government is right to persist in seeking to ensure that the Kyoto protocol has the utility to cope with the task before it: an eightyfold escalation in performance to make a difference to the atmosphere.The bill before the House today is a simple measure that tidies up a substantial step in the right direction. It is a renewable energy mechanism that takes about seven million carbon tonnes out of the atmosphere. That matters. It is a contribution. We have shown by the overall performance of this measure that it can be accommodated within our economy without a cost to employment. The review is on our doorstep. The minister has called for submissions by the end of next week to kick-start the review of the mechanism. I encourage all people with ideas about how to bump up the target—what should be in and what should be out—to get involved in that review to facilitate the further development of this first-class, world-class innovation in renewable energy technology and to provide a better greenhouse outcome for everybody. 21:11:009937Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 as my home state of Tasmania is the renewable energy and electricity capital of Australia and, in particular, my electorate, on the north-west coast of Tasmania, is the wind energy capital of the state. Needless to say, this amendment bill has great significance for my state. The bill before us amends the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, which I had the pleasure of speaking to earlier on, to clarify key definitions in the original legislation and to provide for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of the legislation. A number of minor deficiencies in the operation of the legislation have been revealed, and these need to be addressed to ensure the maintenance and the integrity of the legislation and the achievement of its objectives. I am also pleased to note that the minister in his second reading speech made it quite clear that the amendments were: ... in no way to impact on the government's commitment to conduct an independent and thorough review of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 as mandated under section 162 of the current act ... As such, changes to the policy underpinnings of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act need to be made in an informed rather than a reactionary manner, having regard to all participants in the market and noting the importance of a stable investment environment for the uptake of renewable energy technologies. I applaud that approach, although I know that certain sections of the industry were peddling demands for this review to take place before its commencement in January 2003. However, the minister quite rightly has deemed that that review will take place appropriately. We urge all people who want to have input into that review to do so and that the various questions which were outlined by both the shadow minister for the environment and the shadow minister for resources be looked at during the review. I mentioned before that Tasmania was the pre-eminent renewable energy generator in Australia. I would like to share some information on that. I would also like to talk about the impact of MRETs in particular on Tasmania and their significance to my state, both now and in the future. Hydro Tasmania is the major generator in Tasmania to date. It is hoped that other players will take part in the generation of renewable energy in my state. The shadow minister for resources and I met recently with some of the potential players in my electorate. Tasmania contributes over 60 per cent of Australia's renewable energy. Hydro Tasmania, as the predominant generator, has a work force of over 780 people, electricity generating assets with a value of over $3 billion and a total generating capacity of 2.518 megawatts from 32 power stations, including 27 hydro-electric power stations, two wind farms and more than 50 dams. You can see that renewable energy is a very important product in my home state and a significant generator of wealth and jobs.But there is more to come. The MRET scheme is the key to a greater capacity for renewable energy generation and jobs, especially in regional Australia, as was so eloquently outlined by the shadow minister for the environment earlier this evening. The MRET scheme provides the first true recognition of the external environmental costs associated with fossil fuel power generation in Australia and, accordingly, provides an appropriate incentive for renewable energy generators. This we all agree with. This we supported in 2000 when the bill was first introduced. This government's renewable energy certificate scheme has been designed to stimulate an additional 9,500 gigawatt hours of renewable energy production by 2010. Hydro Tasmania has responded to this mandatory target in a number of ways: for example, in the refurbishment of existing power stations, the development of new mini hydro projects and, most importantly for my electorate, the development of new wind farms. Hydro Tasmania has secured development approval for a large 130-megawatt wind farm at Woolnorth in my electorate, in north-west Tasmania. The first 10.5 megawatts have recently been commissioned. What a sight wind farms are, in an area with the cleanest air and with the cleanest water in the world, apart from Antarctica. That assessment comes from the CSIRO. I was very pleased to have that confirmed. Two other sites, Heemskirk, on Tasmania's west coast, and Musselroe, in the north-east of the state, are at an advanced stage of investigation. Development applications have been submitted for them. These two projects will have a total installed capacity of around 300 megawatts. In addition, Hydro Tasmania is progressing with significant interstate wind development opportunities in South Australia, announced recently, and in Western Australia. So Tasmania, through Basslink and renewable energies, is beginning to make its way into the energy market of mainland Australia.The current commitments by Hydro Tasmania to develop 420 megawatts of wind farm capacity in the state—and up to 1,000 megawatts could be developed—have been used to lever investment in the local manufacture of wind turbine components. This is the very important connection between the MRETs, the stimulation of further renewable energy generation and, from that, the stimulation of economic development, both directly and indirectly. In Tasmania, that connection is best demonstrated by Hydro, with its dams and wind energy. There is that very important synergy in my state. With the development of Basslink, we will be able to participate in the national energy market. That has tremendous possibilities for my state in the future.I want to take a cursory look at some of the economic development that flows from this development of renewable energy capacity and generation in my home state. There is the development of Woolnorth and of the nacelle assembly plant which has been announced by Vestas, for which the first sod is soon to be turned. There is the great possibility, through Basslink, of a link into the national energy market. There is the continued use of the MRETs to stimulate further renewable energy electricity generation on the mainland and the greater demand for wind energy and those products that go with it. As well as these developments, there is a possibility of blade manufacturing in my electorate. Significant jobs will develop from that. With them will come technology transfers, which are so important in the development of high-skilled, high-tech jobs in regional Australia. It is a perfect nexus for us. The MRET scheme contained in the legislation is absolutely vital to this development.We look forward to these developments, particularly Hydro Tasmania's association with Vestas and hopefully with other players who are coming on board. We look forward to the further downstream processing that will come not only with these developments but also with wind tower construction in my home state and with the very important manufacturing that is associated with fibreglassing. We have some of the best fibreglassers in Australia in my electorate. From designing and building terrific boats, emergency shelters and magnificent surfboards, I hope we will go on to develop not only nacelle manufacturing components but the blades themselves. We certainly hope that that will be associated with these developments.In all, the MRET driven renewable energy capital expenditure to 2010 in my home state will, I am led to believe, involve $5.5 million in mini hydro projects, asset upgrades of $208 million, wind farm developments of $620 million—that is just those involving Hydro Tasmania, not other private players—and wind farm developments on the mainland totalling some $440 million, with a total investment based on MRET renewable energy targets and the credits that go with that of $1.47 billion. So it is absolutely essential that we do not hear any more from the Parer report and its recommendations for the abolition of the MRET scheme. The shadow minister for the environment made it quite clear tonight that we oppose the abolition of the MRET scheme and, not only that, we believe it is vital to the development of the renewable energy industry and to the reduction of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. The shadow minister made it very clear tonight that Labor will not scrap MRET. In actual fact, we will increase the target, because we believe that is one of the most important ways to stimulate further generation of renewable energy, particularly renewable energy in electricity. My party in my home state and Hydro Tasmania reject in the strongest possible terms the proposal that MRET should be abolished. It is a very successful, world-class policy initiative that has provided significant incentives to renewable energy generators. It is a critical kick-start for the renewable energy industry and represents a strategic step to establishing a long-run industry with value within Australia and for export.Unless this recommendation is withdrawn quickly, it has the potential to rapidly halt the development of renewables in Australia. Hydro Tasmania's view— and that of my state—is that it is a measure compatible with emissions trading. As emissions trading penalties are increased, the value of RECs will decline until the full value of renewable energy is recognised in the emissions trading value. The two measures will coexist and complement each other. As the shadow minister for the environment pointed out earlier, the abolition of MRET would send very strong signals about the high level of sovereign risk in Australia and undermine investors' confidence in any future measure, including a national emissions trading scheme.In moving to a market based solution, the Parer draft report has resolved to take a technology neutral position. The report concludes that, judged purely on the basis of greenhouse gas abatement, MRET is poorly targeted, administratively complex and economically inefficient, as it is likely to result in marginal producers. It is correct in these conclusions if the only objective of the MRET program is greenhouse gas abatement. The report has failed significantly to assess the industry development aspects of the MRET program. MRET has three policy objectives, only one of which is greenhouse gas abatement. By far the most important aspect, and one ignored by the report, has been its operation as an initiative to foster the development of new industries, particularly in regional Australia, as demonstrated in my electorate and in Tasmania as a whole. In this regard, it is similar to other industrial development initiatives offered by government.Without MRET, it would not be possible to establish a wind turbine manufacturing facility in Tasmania. Should MRET be abandoned, the Vestas investment I mentioned earlier, particularly in my electorate, and similar investments elsewhere, will be jeopardised. It is only via such investments in manufacturing plant and access to world-class technology design that the costs of wind generation can be driven down in the long term, enabling it to compete on equal terms with fossil fuel plants.21:27:009939Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—May I congratulate the member for Braddon for supporting this bill and also for the effort that Tasmania, as a state, has put into renewable energy. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 amends the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 to clarify key definitions in the original legislation and to provide for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of the legislation. These clarifications are needed to maintain the integrity of the legislation and to ensure the full achievements of its objectives.The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 was a world-leading piece of legislation which a number of countries have identified as a model for promoting renewable energy through a market based trading system. Although this legislation has been in operation only since April last year, its implementation is already achieving and delivering significant benefits. Small and large producers are included in the trading scheme, and there are strong indications of investor confidence in the renewable energy sector, with many projects proposed for development. The clarification of definitions contained within the act is particularly important from the viewpoint of investors in renewable energy. The amendments will provide greater clarity about what is an eligible renewable energy source, what is an accredited power station and what is a relevant acquisition of electricity. The harnessing of renewable energies is a challenge that we must continue to address to fulfil our commitment under the Kyoto protocol. Electricity generates more than 70 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, and coal-fired power is responsible for 90 per cent of those emissions. Under the government's current mandatory renewable energy target, MRET, an additional 9,500-gigawatt hours of electricity per year must be generated from renewable sources by 2010, resulting in annual greenhouse gas emission reductions of around seven million tonnes.There are a number of exciting and innovative projects in Australia at the moment which have great potential to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions significantly in the years ahead. One of the more notable and ambitious projects is planned for inland New South Wales, and construction is expected to begin next year. It is a revolutionary clean energy solar power station whose centrepiece is a massive concrete and steel tower that will rise one kilometre into the air. It will be the biggest man-made structure on earth—more than double the height of the world's tallest buildings. A large glass `sunlight collector' or greenhouse, seven kilometres in diameter at the base of the solar tower, will create an updraught of hot air powerful enough to spin the turbines in the base. The solar power station, comprising the greenhouse and tower, has the capacity to generate 200 megawatts of electricity—enough to supply 200,000 households. It is interesting that it is effectively a gigantic greenhouse that will help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.The capital outlay for these sorts of projects is substantial, but their life spans are considerable and they start becoming seriously economical 15 or 20 years down the track. In terms of the environment and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, they start saving us from day one. And of course projects such as this have started looking more viable since the introduction of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, which introduced a kind of subsidy for electricity generated from renewable sources in the form of renewable energy certificates. This solar tower project confirms Australia as a world leader in renewable energy production aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The company planning this massive venture, EnviroMission, has already identified potential sites for further solar towers, including one in my own state of Western Australia.Another bold and innovative project in the search for renewable energy sources is the exploration of the hot- dry-rock geology lying buried beneath several kilometres of insulating earth in South Australia. The Cooper Basin has the hottest known rocks in the world, at drilling depths that are economically viable. Scientists believe these naturally radioactive rocks beneath the earth's surface could provide an inexhaustible and environmentally friendly power source for many years to come. A series of geothermal power stations fuelled by subterranean radioactive rocks has the potential to meet the total electricity demand of the country for hundreds of years, according to scientists. Such a project would be massive—on a scale similar to the Snowy Mountains scheme or the North West Shelf. But despite the scale, the concept itself is simple. The earth's reserves of heat in naturally radioactive rocks could provide an effectively inexhaustible and renewable source of power: no greenhouse gas emissions, little water usage and minimal pollution. Put simply, water is pumped into the hot zone approximately three kilometres beneath the earth's surface, where it spreads through a `reservoir' of hot, cracked rocks. It heats up and returns to the earth's surface as steam, to spin turbines and generate electricity. The water is then recaptured and reused.Geodynamics Ltd are focusing on South Australia's Cooper Basin, where the geology is not only highly promising but well researched, thanks to years of exploration and drilling for oil and gas. Whilst time and money are two major stumbling blocks in the path of hot rock technology, it is a serious contender for future energy needs. A geothermal station would require about 25 years to become operational and would be enormously expensive to build. However, once up and running it should pay for itself within a few years, with minimal maintenance and running costs. Australia has huge potential to develop clean renewable energy. We have huge areas of flat plains and deserts, vast basins of volcanic rock underground, huge tides along the northern coast of Western Australia with great opportunities to harness tidal power, as the member for Kalgoorlie would surely tell us, and a vast coastline ideal for the siting of wind generated turbines and wave power energy generation. There is to be a wave power plant established at Two Rocks, north of my electorate, in the near future. Just a few weeks ago the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, announced Commonwealth funding of $5 million from the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program for the new Esperance wind farm in the south-east of my state of Western Australia. The government has also recently given the green light to Pacific Hydro's 120 wind generators at four sites in Victoria. These are all significant measures towards the goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and meeting our Kyoto commitments.The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002, with its suite of administrative changes, is being introduced now to ensure that there is as little delay as possible in providing certainty to both the power generation industry and the renewable energy industry in the operation of the renewable energy trading system. This certainty is essential for them to make the types of strategic investments required to achieve our challenging target of an additional 9,500-gigawatt hours of electricity based on renewable energy.The administrative amendments contained in the bill are designed to ensure that the integrity of the original legislation is maintained and that it achieves its full objectives. As well as clarifying the definitions in the act, this bill also gives the Renewable Energy Regulator the capacity to vary decisions, including those related to energy acquisition statements, energy shortfall statements and the 1997 eligible renewable energy baseline for an accredited power station. This capacity to amend decisions meets a pragmatic need of the regulator to address mistakes made by participants or to respond to changing circumstances, additional information or the results of monitoring and compliance actions.The bill provides for the introduction of information-gathering powers to underpin the monitoring, auditing and compliance requirements of the act. This bill also recognises that the administrative load for the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator will greatly increase. In order to meet this demand, provision will be made to allow the appointment of Commonwealth officers or employees of state and territory governments to operate as authorised officers and to exercise the power to monitor compliance with the act.The amendments also give the regulator the capacity to suspend entitlements, including the accreditation of a power station in a number of limited circumstances. This is particularly important to ensure that the owners and operators of these businesses conduct themselves in a manner in keeping with the objectives of the legislation. If a power station contravenes or is suspected of contravening a law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory, its accreditation can be suspended. Likewise, if the regulator is reasonably of the opinion that generators are manipulating the output by increasing the quantity of renewable energy certificates able to be created without increasing renewable energy generation, their accreditation can be suspended. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 safeguards the integrity of the world-leading and bold legislation contained in the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. This country already has many innovative sources of renewable energy and it is worth noting that Tasmania, our smallest state, currently generates more than half of this nation's renewable energy. But, as I have said, there are more innovative and exciting projects under way. These amendments will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of the act and promote investment in further projects through greater clarity and certainty. I commend this bill to the House. 21:38:009942Jackson, Sharryn, MPMs JACKSON00AN2HasluckALP00—We have before us today a bill which aims to improve the administrative integrity, effectiveness and efficiency of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 proposes various legislative adjustments to the electricity from renewable energy sources scheme. These adjustments include the creation of significant new penalties. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 establishes the mandatory renewable energy target, the MRET, of an additional 9,500 megawatts of renewable energy by 2010. The objectives of the MRET are: firstly, to accelerate the uptake of renewable energy and grid based applications—that is, energy that does not come from fossil fuels—so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; secondly, as part of the broader strategic package to stimulate renewables, to provide an ongoing base for the development of commercially competitive renewable energy; and, finally, to contribute to the development of internationally competitive industries which could participate effectively in the burgeoning Asian energy market.Before I consider the legislative amendments to the MRET under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002, it is necessary to consider the specific objectives of the original Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. It is also necessary to consider the wider issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emission reduction and the federal government's overall response to this complex and important issue. It is worth stressing that the MRET is the only mandatory greenhouse measure introduced by the Howard government. This measure must be viewed in the context of a federal government that has refused to ratify a global target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions—that is, the Kyoto protocol. It is in the context of a federal government that has, according to the Australian Greenhouse Office annual report, underspent by a massive $141 million on greenhouse reduction initiatives.This measure must be seen in the context of the government's last-minute announcement of funding for the Climate Variability in Agriculture Program of only $500,000, which hardly constitutes a real commitment to national climate variability research. The government's own Agriculture Advancing Australia survey shows that 63 per cent of Australian farmers are yet to take forecasts into account in their farm management decisions. It is in the context of a federal government that needs to do far more to support public transport initiatives and address our reliance on private transport. It is in the context that we are clearing native vegetation in Queensland at more than 400,000 hectares per annum while many other countries are recognising that vegetation acts as a natural sponge for polluting emissions and generates carbon sink credits. Anyone who spent time with the landcare and catchment groups in their electorates would know how long it takes and how expensive it is to revegetate and regenerate native vegetation after clearing. This is even before we consider the resulting salinity and loss of biodiversity from land clearing. Furthermore, climate change could well affect the productivity of this land for agricultural purposes in the long term.This bill is in the context of the federal government failing to confirm that it will continue to fund the Cities for Climate Protection program through the Australian Greenhouse Office, an important partnership between the federal government and local government to address greenhouse gas emission reduction at a local business and household level. I have received a letter from the City of Gosnells in my electorate of Hasluck, representing the South East Regional Energy Group, outlining their concern that the agreement between the Australian Greenhouse Office and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives that collaboratively manages the Cities for Climate Protection program is currently being considered for refunding. The City of Gosnells urges the minister to: ... reinvest in CCP and support the ICLEI to continue its valued approach to assist local government reduce greenhouse gas emissions.I join the City of Gosnells in urging the minister to take that action.In the context of this government's complete failure to come to terms with the incredibly important issue of climate change, the mandatory renewable energy target becomes very important. In the absence of any other greenhouse measures, the MRET must deliver its stated purpose and, to this end, requires detailed analysis. Given that the federal government appears not to be taking the issue of climate change seriously, I feel it is necessary to spell it out. Climate change is already occurring; it is no longer a scientific debate. The CSIRO presents a very clear picture of the threats that climate change presents to Australia. The Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council notes in its 1999 report:... climate change will affect environmental, social and economic systems of present and future generations.Minister David Kemp was reported in the Australian Financial Review dated 26 November this year as saying that Australia was `very vulnerable to climate change', noting coral bleaching, declining rainfall and rising sea levels as areas of concern. He went on to say that we have to reduce the planet's greenhouse emissions by close to 60 per cent. In the context that Kyoto will contribute only one per cent of that, I would have expected to see a raft of policies by Dr Kemp to address the issue of greenhouse emissions, along with a clearly stated global commitment.One of the clear threats to our dryland farming and grazing lands is drought. I find it astounding, given the incredible hardship being experienced right now by communities in rural areas because of drought, that the Howard government has not taken a strong and decisive position on climate change. It is not an exaggeration to state that the social, economic and ecological impact of climate change in Australia is one of the biggest issues facing our country, yet somehow it has failed to capture the Prime Minister's attention and has definitely not provoked any remnant of leadership from him. Strangely enough, the Prime Minister's international position on this issue—as on other issues—closely mirrors that of George Bush. The position of Australia at the Johannesburg Earth Summit was embarrassing for all of us who take seriously the predictions of Australia's most pre-eminent scientific organisation, the CSIRO. Australia was obstructionist rather than constructive in an international forum attempting to deal with the global impact of climate change.Climate change has the potential to impact on all aspects of our life in Australia—agriculture, fisheries, forests, water resources, tourism, biodiversity, weather, our health, our insurance industry, pests and weeds. The potential economic implications of climate change need to be understood, and we need a clear response from our federal government. I believe that the decision to do very little now because of the supposed economic benefit will become a very expensive one in the long term. It is necessary to address the issue of the 1997 Kyoto protocol, and I take this opportunity to urge the Prime Minister and the government to ratify this agreement. No matter how hard the Prime Minister tries to ignore it, the challenge of climate change is not going to go away; we need a global solution. The Kyoto protocol may not be perfect, but it is the first step towards an effective global response.The Prime Minister originally set two preconditions for Australia's ratification of the protocol: the involvement of developing countries and the involvement of the United States. Now that both India and China have committed to ratify, perhaps the Prime Minister could set his sights just a bit higher to consider the benefits of global cooperation and to take some domestic leadership on this issue. Frankly, fiddling at the edges of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 is not—in my opinion—an adequate response.The Prime Minister has placed Australia in the absurd position of committing to meet the Kyoto targets while refusing to ratify the protocol. This means he wants Australia to meet its international climate change obligation but denies Australian industry access to significant and growing markets. If Australia ratifies the protocol, we can use the Kyoto regime to reap hundreds of millions from new emissions trading. But these markets are available to Australia only if we ratify the protocol. In addition, without ratification, Australia cannot gain credit for assisting developing countries to reduce their emissions. Australia must grasp the economic opportunities that are now emerging as the rest of the world moves to deal with climate change. If we wait, Australia will run the risk of missing out on global opportunities and of not playing its part in reducing the immediate impact of climate change. As some prominent Australians have recently stated: Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is a win for Australian jobs, and a win for our environment.The Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council acknowledged that many businesses:... will adapt well, others will resist or postpone change—even though—those industries and countries which choose to do nothing may well in the long run be severely disadvantaged.These comments clearly identify the need for government intervention and action on this issue. The Science, Engineering and Innovation Council went on to state:... timeliness is critical for market penetration. There is a risk that if those businesses which can succeed globally are not identified early, and assisted for success, economic and export opportunities for Australia may be lost.I note that the Sustainable Energy Roundtable and the Electricity Supply Association of Australia identify the need for government to fix appropriate policy settings, which will drive further industry investment in new generation technology. They call on the MRET to be increased year by year—that is, to index the penalties for failing to meet the targets. It is important to remember that Australia has a very good deal under the Kyoto protocol. When most other countries were required to reduce their greenhouse emissions by as much as 10 per cent, we were entitled to increase ours by eight per cent. The Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council noted in its 1999 report that even the Kyoto target of an eight per cent growth in Australia's greenhouse emissions:... will be a formidable challenge, requiring a cut of 35% or some 135 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from expected business as usual growth by 2010.To put the challenge in some perspective: in 1999, our greenhouse emissions were already 17 per cent over 1990 levels. The Australian EcoGeneration Association are of the view that the federal government's two per cent renewable energy target will not deliver the promised increase in market share for renewable energy. They are calling the target the `half a per cent' target. In 1997, the market share for renewables was 10.5 per cent. The increase in share by 2010 will be negligible, according to the AEA. In 1999, the federal government changed the two per cent target to a 9,500-kilowatt target by 2010. It appears, however, that the forecast figures are such that, to achieve a two per cent increase in market share, a target of 13,000 gigawatts needs to be set.There is widespread support for the MRET as an innovative initiative to stimulate additional greenhouse gas abatement from new investment in renewable projects. It is not surprising, however, that the community and industry expect the targets—and the penalty for failing to meet the targets—to be such that they deliver genuine reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity accounts for almost 40 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and is therefore a sector to be taken seriously in terms of fixing appropriate policy settings. With the UK and the European Union setting targets of between five and 10 per cent, our efforts are indeed paltry. The Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council also noted:... in making a response to abatement targets, there is an opportunity to stimulate new technologies in the related areas of energy, agriculture, transportation, recycling, land and water resource management, construction, biodiversity, tourism and physical infrastructure.PMSEIC went on to say:As government takes action to ensure greenhouse emission targets are met, industry can develop new products and services and gain benefits in other sectors. We have seen in other countries what is possible when a government takes the lead and promotes renewable energy production. We have seen a country such as Denmark seize the agenda and become a world leader in wind energy at a time when this was definitely not fashionable.Denmark's wind industry now employs some 15,000 people, from zero at the start of the 1980s, and has a turnover of in excess of $US1 billion. In 1997, wind turbines were the country's fourth largest export commodity. Wind currently produces 10 per cent of Denmark's electricity, and the latest target is 50 per cent by 2030. This is surely a lesson in leadership.The PMSEIC 1999 report outlined a vision for sustainable industries and technologies as the drivers of economic growth. It is very clear to me, sad as it is, that this government is not up to the challenge. A fundamental principle on which MRET was based was that it would deliver additional greenhouse gas abatement from new investments in renewable energy projects.Using climate model simulations, the CSIRO has estimated future changes in Australian temperature, rainfall and evaporation. Scientists expect that continued increases in greenhouse gas levels will lead to further global warming and regional climate change. This is an issue we have to take seriously. We have no choice. If we just take our agricultural sector, CSIRO predicts that dryland wheat in south-western Australia is likely to be at particular risk because of the projected large decreases in winter and spring rainfall. Warmer winters will lead to lower yields of fruit and reduced fruit quality, particularly for stone fruit and apples in southern Australia. Warmer conditions, with significant decreases in winter and spring rainfall in southern Australia, could significantly reduce plant production in high rainfall grazing industries. Rangelands in Australia's arid and semi-arid interior may also face the effects of reduced rainfall in winter and spring, the main growing seasons for herbage in the southern rangelands.The impacts of climate change have also been outlined by the CSIRO for our forests, natural systems and biodiversity, water resources, human communities and human health. Climate change will have social, economic and ecological impacts that will have a far bigger and less predictable impact on our future than planning for change.The impetus for change is in the hands of the federal government—to fix appropriate policy settings and targets to increase production and use of renewable energy. The federal government claims that this bill aims to improve the administrative integrity, efficiency and effectiveness of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. It would be more meaningful if the bill aimed to improve the uptake of renewable energy in grid based application so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Surely that should be the actual intention.10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—Order! Before I call the member for Curtin, I advise the member for Hasluck that, for the first half of her contribution, the chair was most indulgent. I would ask you to have a look at standing order 81.21:56:009945Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I rise tonight to speak in support of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002. The bill, administrative and technical as its provisions may be, serves the purpose of bringing debate before this House on the Australian environment and the public policy deployed by the Commonwealth government to remedy and safeguard that environment. There is little doubt that the 6½ years that have passed since the election of the first Howard government have been to the lasting, substantive benefit of the Australian environment. One would not think so, if forced to rely solely on the protestations of those who make their living as crusaders against development or on the more hackneyed journalistic efforts on this topic. To them, the environment is just another cultural issue where the winner is surely she or he who can best empathise, who can mouth the most fashionable platitude and who can generate the biggest stunt or steal the five-second grab. In the meantime, the people who actually care for the environment—the people who wish to ameliorate negative externalities associated with modern life and who wish to ensure that a balance is reached between the needs of mankind and the needs of nature—are getting on with the job, supported every step of the way by a government that gauges success by evidence, not by newspaper headlines. By building partnerships between industry, communities and governments, the Commonwealth has made significant advances in recent years in managing and protecting the environment. These successes include focusing attention on oceans, through Australia's oceans policy, introducing new national environment protection legislation and involving Australian communities in the repair and conservation of their own environments through the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.In the field of energy and climate policy, the federal government has been equally sure-footed. In the face of often wildly dishonest and sometimes just plain hysterical lobbying from so-called professional environmentalists, the Howard government has reiterated that it will not ratify the Kyoto protocol unless and until it is demonstrated that it is in the national interest to do so. Instead, it will continue to work with industry and agriculture so that Australia can achieve by 2012 the target of 108 per cent of our 1990 greenhouse gas emissions. Australia will also strive for a more effective global response to climate change—a response that maintains high living standards in this country. It is important to grasp that, by expressing scepticism about the Kyoto protocol, the government is not expressing scepticism about cutting greenhouse gases.As the Minister for the Environment and Heritage noted in his press release dated 18 November:The Federal government is already committed to meeting Australia's Kyoto target and has committed $1 billion to abatement programmes.What is more, two expert reports on the costs of ratifying the Kyoto protocol have concluded that the long-term costs of ratification outweigh the short-term benefits. And those benefits are confined almost wholly to the state of New South Wales. That is why the Premier of New South Wales has gone out on a limb on this issue. But opinion north and west of the premier state is considerably less acquiescent. Mr Carr's counterpart in Brisbane, Mr Beattie, stated:There is only one state in Australia that would be advantaged economically by the Kyoto protocols and that's New South Wales ... The rest of us are disadvantaged.The Premier of Western Australia, Dr Gallop, said:I am not happy about the Commonwealth just signing up ... we shouldn't sign it until all of the states and territories have been properly involved in the process so we're not disadvantaged.The stance presented by Mr Beattie and Dr Gallop is quite refreshing. It acknowledges that resource based economies like Queensland and Western Australia would be disadvantaged significantly by the submission of the Commonwealth to the position advocated by the federal opposition. This presents a dilemma to the opposition members of this House from states like Western Australia. It is incumbent upon such members, like the member for Hasluck—to whom I listened earlier on this bill when she was effectively opposing Dr Gallop's stance—and the members for Swan, Stirling and Cowan to support the federal and Gallop governments' united front on Kyoto.Western Australia's mining and other resource industries not only produce profits for the balance sheets of the companies on St George's Terrace but also put food on the table in Carlisle, Balcatta and Alexander Heights. Their royalties help fund schools in Canning Vale and the police in Dianella and in Gosnells. Anything that represents a threat to our state's development is a serious threat to the prosperous future of our community. It might be hard for the member for Perth, who is in the shadow cabinet, but the member for Brand is not and the member for Fremantle certainly is not. These members, along with their colleagues in the swinging seats of suburban Perth, should do all in their power to ensure that their comrades in New South Wales cease and desist. The Kyoto protocol in its present manifestation will do nothing for Australia's environment, or the global environment for that matter, but it will surely be an economic disaster for Western Australia. The member for Hasluck concedes tonight that the Kyoto protocol is not perfect, but she and other Western Australian Labor members should do the right thing by their electorates and eschew the politics of symbolism for public policy based on facts. The Kyoto protocol is flawed. It will deliver only one per cent of cuts when much more substantial cuts are required. It exempts developing countries when it is those countries that are emerging as the planet's heaviest atmospheric polluters.The federal government recognises that public policy should rest on science and reason rather than symbolism and has sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without recourse to economic lunacy through programs like Cities for Climate Protection and the Greenhouse Challenge. The federal government has also established the Australian Greenhouse Office, the world's only national greenhouse dedicated agency responsible for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and has allocated from the federal budget $1 billion for abatement measures, including up to $114.3 million for the development and commercialisation of renewable energy; $31 million for the use of photovoltaic systems on residential buildings and community-use buildings; the $400 million Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program that will result in maximum emission reductions or sink enhancements; and $75 million in support for conversions to alternative fuels for commercial vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, trains and ferries; and up to an additional $179.4 million for the use of renewables for remote power generation.As well, the federal government has accelerated reforms to improve the efficiency of energy production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; introduced the mandatory labelling of automotive fuel efficiency; implemented energy efficiency building codes and standards; and fostered plantation forestry and revegetation to provide carbon dioxide sinks. To facilitate these reforms, the federal government passed the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill in 2000. That legislation requires retailers of electricity and liable entities—that is, large scale purchasers of electricity—to collectively source an increased 9,500 gigawatts of electricity—an increase from 10.7 per cent to 12.7 per cent; the equivalent of two new Snowy Mountains hydro-electric schemes—from renewable resources by 2010. In this context renewable energy means sources such as wind, solar, hydro, and methane from landfill. The measure would have the effect of both increasing investment in renewable energy production and reducing greenhouse emissions.The measures before the House tonight will improve the renewable energy certificates—or RECs—implemented by the act. Definitions and provisions in the act will be clarified, including those related to eligible renewable energy sources, relevant acquisitions of electricity, RECs for solar water heaters, penalty charges and power station components. The Renewable Energy Regulator will be empowered to vary a number of assessments and determinations made under the act, including varying the energy acquisition statement, the renewable energy shortfall statement and the 1997 eligible renewable energy baselines for accredited power stations. The regulator will also be granted information-gathering powers for the purposes of more effective monitoring and compliance.Finally, the bill provides for the suspension of accredited power stations where, for example, gaming is suspected. Gaming in this context refers to the manipulation of outputs in order to artificially increase RECs without actually increasing the production of renewable energy. The greenhouse abatement measures adopted by the federal government since 1996 are on track to deliver emission reductions of around 60 million tonnes annually. To put this figure in perspective, that is the equivalent of removing every single passenger vehicle from Australia's roads. The bill before the House, by improving the working operations of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act, will contribute to that reduction in emissions. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House. 22:07:009948Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—I rise in support of this Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002. This bill enjoys a large measure of bipartisan support, but this is the House of Representatives of the parliament of a democratic country and I think there are grounds to accommodate a wide variety of views on these kinds of issues. Indeed, within the support for a measure like this, the parliament can accommodate views that allow one to canvass the depth of the measure. While supporting it, that allows an analysis of the measure, encompassing not only support for the measure but also a broader understanding of the way in which the measure will impact on the Australian public and, perhaps, a broader understanding of the many and deep policy issues which are involved in energy analysis as well.That brings us to the terminology of the bill itself and the policy issues which underlie the principal act with which we are dealing—the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act itself, which this bill amends. Renewable energy itself is something which most members of the public and indeed almost all members of the parliament would, if pressed, immediately support. It is something which, when you examine the title itself, you could hardly not support. That is the instinctive reaction of all concerned and it is one that I normally have.It is the instinctive reaction that we have these days particularly in the context of the global crisis in relation to climate change and greenhouse gases. People automatically link these two issues because in the public mind we have often come to associate them. Those who expound the virtues of renewable energy have played on the relationship between these two issues in marketing their products—because let us not lose sight of the fact that this is also a commercial issue. Those who sell renewable energy products such as windmills and solar energy products also have a commercial interest in the sale of those products. There is nothing wrong or unreasonable about that. Our whole society is based on the principle of market sales of products, and I am not in any way critical of that. It is entirely appropriate that they should have that commercial interest, and that forms the basis of the renewable energy market with which we are dealing here today. But we should not lose sight of that commercial interest, because it is central to this whole thing. Indeed, if we turn our minds back, what we have here is another tariff debate in a way, because this is a bill which subsidises a significant industry, and it subsidises it to a substantial extent.If we read the report of the Australian Greenhouse Office and the underlying documents that support the renewable energy legislation—both the principal act and this amending bill—we realise that the estimates of cost for this measure are quite substantial. Over the next 10 years, the principal act and this legislation will ensure that the cost of this renewable energy target, which is some two per cent, is of the order of 1.5 per cent to perhaps as much as three per cent of the electricity cost to Australian business and consumers. Estimates vary of course but that makes the total cost of this a very substantial cost indeed. It will be of the order of $1 billion or $2 billion. In fact, if one were to quote from the implementation study from the Australian Greenhouse Office, the working group places the cost at $1.8 billion to $3 billion in the period 2001 to 2010.In the light of that, we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of this legislation is. Is it to create a renewable energy industry for its own sake? In other words, is the parliament subsidising this form of energy for the purpose of creating an industry? We did that in the fifties and sixties with Holden and Mitsubishi to create a motor vehicle industry in South Australia—in my own electorate as well as in other electorates of South Australia—and perhaps in other places throughout Australia. That had its success and then, ultimately, it had to be phased down. If that is the purpose of the legislation, it is one thing. Are we looking to create a windmill industry in this country, for its own sake, or are we looking to create a renewable energy industry in order to address the greenhouse gas problem and in order to reduce CO2 emissions? If that is our target, we should say so. We should not title this the `renewable energy' bill. We should title it the CO2 Gas Reduction Act or the CO2 Gas Reduction Amendment Bill, so that we actually understand the purpose of the legislation. If we did that, we could better define our target. If we are going to spend $1.8 billion to $3 billion—and let us say that that is $2 billion on the low side—over 10 years, every cent of that money is going to come from Australian taxpayers. While it is very reasonable that Australian taxpayers and taxpayers throughout the world should spend money to address serious issues like greenhouse gases and global warming—and I am sure all members of the House would agree that those are very reasonable targets for the Australian community to address—on the other hand, consumers and taxpayers would insist that we spend that money in the most effective way. I am sure that they would agree that it is reasonable and effective to spend that money to address an important global crisis like that created by global warming and CO2 emissions, but would they also agree that it is a desirable thing to spend the money to establish an industry in renewable energy? That may be a different question.The answer is an electricity levy, but what is the question? We have our answer, but what is the question? The answer is $2 billion, but we still have not quite defined the question. Is the question addressing greenhouse gases or is the question establishing a renewable energy industry? Right now, the question is that we are establishing a windmill industry and perhaps a solar power industry and perhaps a biomass industry? Right now it seems to be windmills and biomass because nothing else is viable—and certainly on the whole it is a biomass industry. So right now we are spending $2 million over the next 10 years to burn some biomass and perhaps to build some windmills. I am not certain that that is the best investment for $2 billion of Australian taxpayers' and consumers' money over the next 10 years.I think the global greenhouse problem is the most serious issue that we face in the environmental area—apart from salinity, which, in Australia's case, may be more serious. Those two issues rank very highly. If this bill is about addressing the global warming question and CO2 emissions, surely we should define that and not renewable energy as the most central issue in this debate. If it turns out, on sensible inquiry and with scientific research and economic modelling, that the renewable energy industry is the most effective way to meet that target, then certainly present that inquiry, that research and that modelling to the parliament. I am sure that, with the degree of unanimity which you have seen this evening and which you saw when the bill was last before the House, you will get the same vote and the same answer. The parliament will endorse the taxation of the people over the next 10 years to obtain the funding necessary to support the industry, because it certainly will not survive on its own without that kind of subsidy. Without that subsidy, I suspect none of these projects will succeed. That certainly tells you something about the industry itself, because, without the subsidy, those projects will not go ahead and they will not succeed. Unless we continue in the present vein, the industry will gradually fade out because coal and gas can compete much more cost effectively. That tells us something else about the nature of Australia's energy cost structures. We have a great deal of coal and gas. If the issue was CO2 rather than the creation of a renewable energy industry, perhaps that large taxation base could be spent on a clean coal industry and on removing the CO2 from the coal stack as it is generated. With a small portion of that funding, the CRC for Clean Power from Lignite, which is currently working very hard to evolve new technologies to remove the CO2 from power stations as it is generated, could evolve much better technologies than it currently is able to with its limited funding and could assist our very substantial coal export industry, which currently accounts for a substantial part of our export earnings, Australia being the world's largest coal exporter. Many thousands of jobs in Australia depend on that export industry. They would be able to go a long way towards delivering on their target of a zero emission coal plant—a very effective answer to the very serious problem of global warming and a very effective answer which seeks to address the serious problem of Australian economic catastrophe if coal ceases to be a serious energy source at some time in the future. Current ABARE projections still have coal and gas as very serious contributors to Australia's electricity generation capacity, even in 20 years time, and renewables still at a very low level in 20 years time. That is something which we all have to address if this bill and the parent act are to be the effective measure that the proponents are seeking. My colleagues and, indeed, colleagues on the other side of the parliament support the legislation which we have before us. Nonetheless, I think there are serious issues which we still have to consider to satisfy ourselves—and the taxpayers and voters who put us here—if we are to seriously address the legislation and the objectives which we have set ourselves in this legislation and in the parent legislation. How do we actually meet the targets in the act? How do we actually meet the objectives which we have told the public we have set for ourselves? How do we actually address the understanding which we have here? This is a $1½ billion to $3 billion taxation act, and it is an act with objectives which we need to meet if we are to be honest with ourselves, with the environment and with the community. Yet it is one about which, at this present time, we have not been entirely honest with ourselves or with the electorate. I think we need to do that in a very serious way and in a scientific and environmentally accountable way if we are going to meet that standard.The United States, since the mid-1970s, have spent in the order of $A22 billion in subsidising the delivery of renewable energy. They have spent that kind of money over that period and have achieved minimal penetration of renewable energy into the US market. They have also spent $A30 billion in researching renewable energies. Yet what is the state of that technology in the United States? The technology is freely transferable to Australia. It is on the open market in the United States. There is nothing secret about that. Unlike US military research, this research is freely available on the open market. After $A30 billion, where are we with renewable energy in the US market? You can buy that technology tomorrow in the United States and import it to Australia, and the result of approximately 25 years work and $A30 billion of R&D is still your average windmill. We still have the finest technology of the 15th century from Holland. It has been dramatically improved, but it is still your average windmill. With that, I rest my case. While supporting the bill, I think we have some serious questions to address.Debate (on motion by Fran Bailey) adjourned.Committees99509950995022:22:009950Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee's report entitled Report 50—Treaties tabled on 15 October 2002, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—by leave—The report contains the results of an inquiry conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into three treaty actions tabled in the parliament on 15 October, concerning double taxation, medical treatment for temporary visitors, and research, development and training relating to nuclear science and technology. The first treaty considered by the committee was an amendment to the double taxation agreement between Australia and Vietnam. This treaty proposal, in the form of an exchange of letters, arose because of changes Vietnam has made to its domestic laws regarding foreign investment. Vietnam has sought Australia's agreement that the relevant tax incentives will remain substantively the same as those previously agreed between the two countries. In effect, the treaty ensures that tax-sparing arrangements previously agreed to in the double taxation agreement continue until 30 June 2003, when they will expire permanently.Tax sparing is an arrangement where tax forgone by a foreign country on the income of an Australian resident is deemed to have been paid. Thus the tax forgone is credited as if it were actually paid. The committee has considered such arrangements in past reports, most recently in report 48, where tax- sparing arrangements with Malaysia were considered and the committee agreed that they be extended to 30 June 2003. Tax-sparing arrangements are targeted to foster genuine economic development and relate to active business income—for example, the construction of power production infrastructure, the development of ports to facilitate export processing, the expansion of heavy industry and the plantation of new forests for commercial exploitation. The committee has had ongoing concerns about the manner in which information on double taxation agreements, including tax-sparing arrangements, is provided by the Treasury, and has sought to ensure that such agreements are in fact in the national interest. The committee was concerned that the OECD, for example, had reservations about tax-sparing policies in general. The committee was advised that these arrangements are no longer preferred government policy. However, the committee agrees with Treasury that the Australian government ought to honour its commitments to tax-sparing arrangements with Vietnam until the previously agreed date. The proposed exchange of letters accomplishes this objective by recognising changes in Vietnamese domestic law, thus providing security for Australian investors in Vietnam. The committee also accepts that this is conducive to continuing the strong bilateral relations between the two countries. The committee acknowledges Treasury's continuing efforts to provide specific details in national interest analyses relating to double taxation agreements and looks forward to receiving information from Treasury on the historical costs and benefits of such treaties when similar amendments or extensions are considered in the future.The second treaty action considered in this report is an amendment to the agreement between Australia and Ireland on medical treatment for temporary visitors. This bilateral reciprocal health care agreement enables visiting residents of one country to access the public health system of the other to obtain any treatment that is immediately necessary prior to travelling home. This agreement covers public hospital and pharmaceutical care. Reciprocal health care agreements are of particular assistance to persons who are fit to travel overseas but are unable to obtain insurance. This could be, for example, because they are over 70 years of age or have a pre-existing medical condition. Australia has reciprocal health care agreements with New Zealand, Italy, Malta, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. These countries are considered to have health systems of an equivalent standard to Australia.Until the introduction of the National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Act, access to the PBS was automatic upon presentation of a valid prescription. The act now requires people to produce evidence of their entitlements to the PBS. For Australians, this would be a Medicare card. The amendment to this agreement introduces a requirement that Irish visitors requesting access to the PBS produce a passport to access the PBS entitlements, thus bringing the treaty into line with Australian law.The third and final agreement considered in this report is an extension to the regional cooperative agreement for research, development and training related to nuclear science and technology. The committee understands that the regional cooperative agreement, the RCA, is an important mechanism in fulfilling the technical cooperation provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Continued membership of the 1987 RCA is therefore one way for Australia to meet its obligations to cooperate with other parties in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy under that treaty. The committee was advised that the non-proliferation treaty is the centrepiece of the non-proliferation regime, which for over a quarter of a century has helped maintain Australia's immediate strategic environment free from nuclear weapons.As a party to the non-proliferation treaty, Australia has made a commitment to facilitate the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The 1987 RCA also allows Australia to participate in international collaborative projects and to maintain and extend a national capacity in cutting edge nuclear technologies. The committee understands that the cooperation program covers six broad thematic sectors: health, environment, industry, radiation protection, agriculture and energy. The committee was advised that Australia is leading half of the projects in the health care sector, especially for the training of medical technicians, medical graduates in oncology and medical physics. The committee was advised that there is a critical shortage in the Asia-Pacific region of medical physicists, who are essential to ensure that optimum performance is obtained from equipment that represents considerable investment by the countries involved. The RCA program has matured over the years since its inception, from capacity building into applications that assist in addressing and providing solutions to environmentally sustainable development programs and challenges of collective importance. The committee concurs with evidence it received that Australia has been playing a lead role in developing management strategies to enable RCA member states to take on more responsibility for the development and implementation of the program. It is the view of the committee that it is in the interest of Australia for the treaties considered in report 50 to be ratified, and the committee has made its recommendations accordingly. I commend the report to the House.Adjournment995210000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being almost 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.995222:29:009952Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Elderly Australians deserve dignity, security and support in their old age. Whether they are receiving an age pension or they are low-income self-funded retirees, many are finding it harder to make ends meet. For several years the Howard government has been undermining the financial security of our aged, with the ongoing withdrawal of nursing home funding and dental programs and, more recently, cuts to the PBS and the gradual demise of bulk-billing, not to mention the enormous pressure on their living standards through increased taxation and increased prices for the essentials of life. They have been hit with higher taxes and more expensive essential services. Not too many age pensioners and self-funded retirees would forget the broken promise of a compensation package at the introduction of the GST. I would like to remind the parliament of some of the facts and figures on how the aged were duped into thinking that the pensioner bonus scheme—the $1,000 that would somehow lessen the impact of the GST's introduction—would be delivered to all, when it was simply not delivered to many. The government's own figures showed that just 1.75 million people received a dollar or more from this scheme. This left 43 per cent of people in the eligible age group—1.3 million older Australians—receiving a dollar or less, despite the promise of $1,000 to each and every one of them. This bungled GST compensation forced the government into a range of other pre-election sweeteners. The headlines claimed there would be a massive tax windfall for retirees, with changes to the low-income aged persons tax offset, but these too were a con. In selling them, the government overstated the benefits by also rolling in the tax changes that were already announced as part of the new tax system reforms—changes which in themselves were due anyway thanks to bracket creep. In addition, the claimed tax concessions phased out rapidly as income increased. But in the ultimate twist the government effectively placed a use-by date on the changes, with sneaky changes that meant the tax offset was no longer indexed to preserve its value. The bottom line is that the increase in the tax offset would have occurred anyway, yet today we had the Treasurer in the House making magnificent claims of how generous the government was. This is simply not true. This is a significant point, and it indicates the extent to which the government will go to try and con the elderly that they have received a generous deal when they have not. The elderly have also been the subject of some particularly huge price hikes of late. Labor is acutely aware of the difficulties faced by older Australians, particularly singles, in making their fortnightly pension or savings stretch around the household budget. Financial pressures have increased since the GST, which has had a big impact on basic items, particularly utility bills. Since June 2000, electricity charges have increased by 17.5 per cent, gas by 23 per cent and rates by 16 per cent. This has a particular impact on low-income Australians and people on fixed incomes, as they spend a much higher proportion of their income on these essentials of life. One fundamental concern for Labor has been the ability of the CPI, which is used in part to increase the pension, to reflect price increases experienced by pensioners. This probably explains why so many pensioners feel as if they are falling behind. That is why Labor put forward a policy at the last election to commission a study by the ABS to find whether a better price index could be formulated to properly reflect the price hikes experienced by pensioners. A fresh look at this is required, despite the fact that the ABS has continued to compile an experimental price index series that was initiated under the former Labor government. Whilst the index averages out over time to the same levels as the CPI, it has shown that some short-term price increases hitting older Australians do not flow through to the CPI. For example, the experimental series has for some quarters outstripped the general CPI by almost four times. That is why so many older Australians are feeling like they are slipping further and further behind. Pensioners with a telephone have already experienced huge increases in their line rental prices. In two years this cost has doubled, and Telstra is proposing further increases. A telephone can be a lifeline for a pensioner, but these charges, which will not be offset by the minor reductions in call costs, will turn the telephone into a luxury item and put it out of the financial reach of many people. Telstra appears to be taking a leaf out of the book of the banks. It too has increased fees to a point where a recent survey has shown that only 11 per cent of customers of the big four banks are very satisfied with their service. Older Australians particularly rely on Medicare and bulk-billing to get essential medical care, and the withdrawal of bulk-billing is taking a very big financial and health toll on older Australians. In my electorate, bulk-billing has been cut by eight per cent in two years. This equates to about 2,000 doctor visits per week where patients are now being hit with up-front payments. The increase in copayments to see doctors who do not bulk-bill has left a lot of older people choosing either not to visit their doctor or to delay treatment. They simply cannot afford to do so. Older people are now being forced to seek treatment in public hospitals or not to get treatment at all. (Time expired)995322:34:009953Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I am pleased to report to the House this evening that Kalgoorlie-Boulder, the inland Western Australian city, is still on the cutting edge of vibrancy when it comes to creating new initiatives to put itself on the map. Yesterday I had the pleasure of being part of the most recent St Barbara's Festival and parade. Many of you will ask: `Who is St Barbara?' Let me tell you that she is the patron saint of miners. St Barbara was a young woman who rose to martyrdom after her father, a heathen nobleman, pledged her hand in marriage to a rich suitor. He was enraged to discover that his daughter had converted to Christianity whilst he was away from home. St Barbara fled from the situation and took refuge in nearby underground mine workings. Miners whom she converted to Christianity kept her hidden for two years until shepherds saw her and informed her father of her whereabouts. She was captured whilst fetching water and sentenced to death, and her father beheaded her. 00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr King—Shame!84THaase, Barry, MPMr HAASE—`Shame, shame, shame,' you say. She has henceforth been accepted by all emergency workers, miners and those of that ilk as their patron saint. As a gift to the community of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, in 1999 the Eastern Regional Council of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy presented a statue of St Barbara and created the first St Barbara's Festival in Kalgoorlie-Boulder. They commissioned a local artist, Nana Lye, to design the St Barbara statue and fountain. The festival that year consisted of a ceremony to celebrate the role of mining in the community and to unveil the statue and fountain in St Barbara's Square on Hannan Street and a street parade. After the success of that weekend festival, the organisers were asked to extend the celebrations. It then became a 10-day event. The committee tries to schedule the festival and its major event, the parade, as close to 4 December as possible, which marks the day of St Barbara's feast. This year's festival and yesterday's parade saw miners, prospectors and shearers depicting the Year of the Outback. A massive Caterpillar 793 haul truck led the way in a street parade that was designed to impress. For those of you not familiar with a 793 Caterpillar haul truck, it is a vehicle with 125 tonnes tare and is capable of carrying 225 tonnes of ore. It is an incredible monster, some 3½ storeys high. This vehicle moving down the main street of Kalgoorlie was something to behold. I believe in the future it will attract crowds from across Australia as it is the only opportunity in Australia to see, almost at arm's reach, such a mammoth vehicle take part in a street parade. Yesterday a crowd of some 10,000—recalling that that is out of a total population of 30,000—lined the main street. There were approximately 80 entrants in the parade, which is 20 more vehicles than last year. There were prizes awarded in three categories for the best float entrants. I am pleased to tell the House that the Amalgamated Prospectors and Leaseholders Association won first prize for their entry. The Undies 500, which is a community group based in Boulder, won the community category and the South Kalgoorlie Primary School won the schools category.The other event of great significance that took place on that day was the official signing off of a sister city relationship between Alice Springs and the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This is a major achievement, moved and assisted by the Alice Springs Mayor, Fran Kilgariff, and the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Mayor, Paul Robson. This is the cementing of a relationship that will see the promotion of the Outback Highway, amongst other things. I thank the committee members of the St Barbara's Festival: the festival chairman, Dick Scallan; parade coordinator, Gary Lye; and committee members Anthony Whiteaker, Karina Tairua, Mick Shepherd, James Saunders, Alison Roberts, Anne Petz, Norma Latchford, Donna Hanks, Hugh Gallagher and Ken Donaldson. My eternal thanks to you and may the parade last a long time. (Time expired)995422:39:009954Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—The terrorist act on 11September, 2001 changed the international landscape forever. The terrorist act on 12 October in Bali changed forever the way Australia sees our relationship in international politics. Terrorism is the ultimate expression of intolerance. Political leaders in Australia have been careful to make sure that that intolerance does not have a role here in domestic politics. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and my colleague the shadow minister for foreign affairs have been careful to emphasise that people from an Islamic background should not suffer as a result of intolerance in our community. This has been mirrored by many in the political community, not least of whom is Bob Carr, the Premier of New South Wales, who has established a youth partnership with the Arabic-speaking community. On Tuesday, 13 August 2002 Piers Akerman in the Daily Telegraph referred to the events where Hazem El Masri, the winger for Canterbury, launched one of those campaigns. Mr El Masri said:I urge you (Mr Carr) to help put an end to the isolation our community is suffering ... We do not condone rape ... this is how we are being portrayed. Today the Muslim community is the most hated in the nation.He went on to say, encouragingly, that he preferred to be thought of as Australian:... so that we can all feel part of one family. Piers Akerman, unfortunately, went on to say:It is impossible, in such cases—speaking about the rapes that occurred— to separate the racial or religious identity the criminals boasted from their nauseating acts and somewhat difficult to warm to all of their co-religionists.He went on in the same article to say:There have been very few acts of discrimination against Australian Muslims since September 11 or the gang rapes because this remains largely a stable and law-abiding society.Unfortunately, that is not true. Mr El Masri was saying that many Muslims have indeed suffered racial vilification and violence in the wake of these events.Gerard Henderson pointed out in an article on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 that accusing fellow Australians of disloyalty can be a very bad thing. He said that Mr Akerman:... signed an advertisement in The Review ... In recent times, Akerman has attempted to pass this as an expression of his opposition to Australia's Vietnam commitment. But it was much more than that. The signatories claimed that Australians in the ADF had become “mercenaries” in the cause of “American imperial politics”. In recent years even leftists like Jane Fonda have apologised for past critical references to Allied servicemen. But not Akerman.In yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, there was another extraordinary article by Mr Akerman. He stated: ... as Abu Aiman Al-Hilali, a senior member of the Al-Qaeda terror organisation, marked the US, Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia as enemies of the organisation.That article goes on to quote, word for word—indeed, 31 per cent of that article is direct quotes—from the press release issued by the Israeli defence forces on 4 December 2002. It is absolutely extraordinary that a journalist, without any attribution whatsoever, has gone through and quoted every single word written in this press release. While much of the press release is quotes from an article by Mr Al-Hilali, it is absolutely extraordinary that someone who speaks later in the article about protecting our national sovereignty and standing up for a secure Australia quotes a press release from the defence forces of another country without attribution.Piers Akerman, week after week, produces articles which vilify the Islamic community in Australia. This simply must stop. It is inappropriate for a journalist in a newspaper with the widest readership in Australia to engage in this sort of conduct. Quite frankly, it contrasts markedly with what both sides of this House have tried to do to ensure that tolerance has its place here in Australia and that intolerance has no place. I seek leave to table the press release from the Israeli defence forces. (Time expired)Leave granted.995522:44:009955Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—The House would recall the outpouring of feelings following the bombing in Bali. Many words were uttered in this House, touching on a wide range of emotions, as we tried to come to terms with the tragedy. For me it will always be a nightmare. Whilst the focus was on the victims and the outrage we all felt, there are others who were associated with the event who should also be in our thoughts. In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, amid the destruction and devastation, an army of people came to the aid of their fellow Australians. Many were holidaying in Kuta. Many heard the call. They included not only laypeople but also doctors and nurses. Regardless of who they were as individuals, first and foremost they were Australians.I bring this to the attention of the House because recently I had the pleasure of attending a rededication ceremony for the naval graves at Nowra Cemetery. There I met Mrs Carmel Durant, her daughter and family. Her husband, Mr Durant, was interred there. We got talking and she told me that she had written to the Prime Minister, calling for recognition of the many who had helped in Bali. In a letter to me, she says:This matter, I feel is a very important one and should be rectified by the Government as soon as possible. A public thankyou would be a very fitting gesture. People working in the medical field very rarely receive recognition. I feel this would give them a tremendous boost and would encourage them to carry out the work they have trained for. Many medically trained personnel—doctors and nurses—were on holiday in Kuta and, like true Australians, they went immediately to the hospital in Denpasar to work for up to 24 hours straight to stabilise the injured, under difficult circumstances and with very few resources. After stabilising them, these Australian medical volunteers escorted the patients to the planes for transfer to hospitals in Australia. The plane crew did a wonderful job and were personally thanked by the Prime Minister. Mrs Durant finishes her letter by saying: Please don't put this request in the `too hard' basket.Mrs Durant wants these people to be properly recognised. She wants them to be given the tribute their contributions deserve.In another letter, Mr Bruce Murphy, from Nowra Funeral Services, writes about his son Craig:I would like to inform you that my son Craig has been in Bali since Saturday, 2 November, working as an embalmer with the repatriation of deceased persons from the Bali bomb disaster. Craig is a young man of 27 years of age, with a wife and two young children. When he was asked to go to Bali to perform this task he had no hesitation in going. As you can imagine, this is an arduous task for a young man to undertake. After talking with Craig regarding the time that is being spent by him and other colleagues he is working with, some of these people have taken time off in lieu of wages and others have taken annual leave. I think that in a situation like this where people go and respond to a disaster, although they are being paid, they should not have to lose their wages or their annual leave to perform these tasks.It is acts like these that often go unnoticed, yet they make Australia what it is. No terrorist will take this away from us. It is all about the Australian spirit. People just walked in from their holidays and saved lives. There are countless tales from all of those who worked there without thought of favour or recompense. As a grateful nation, we are morally obliged to recognise this service. I am not suggesting payment, for the assistance they all extended was not for mercenary purposes. It was not a commercial proposition but an act of compassion and humanity that compelled many to pitch in and help. It is in this context that we should extend a timely acknowledgment of this contribution. We gave our Olympians and cricketers a parade. It was rightly deserved. But now we are talking about true heroes, because the act was instinctive and unselfish. Those who assisted in Bali reflected all that we as Australians hold true, and epitomised the spirit of a nation in helping their mates. I call on the House to show its gratitude to the scores of Australians who helped in Bali, whether in an official or unofficial capacity. The gesture should be made soon, and it has to be appropriate. I have written to the Prime Minister asking how this can be done. I look forward to the support of my colleagues in the House.995622:49:009956Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—Earlier today I presented a petition, containing the names of 21,654 people, demanding that the federal government honour its commitment to fund the duplication of the Calder Highway to Bendigo. This petition is the largest from central Victoria to be presented to this parliament. Given the deliberate distortion in the lead-up to the state election campaign by Liberal and National candidates, and by the Bendigo Plus group—either intentionally or inadvertently—I now seek to put the facts on the public record.The Commonwealth has a primary responsibility to declare Australian roads to be roads of national importance. The states put forward proposals, but the Commonwealth decides if it will or will not declare a particular road a RONI. The Calder Highway between Melbourne and Bendigo was declared a road of national importance by the Howard government in November 1996. RONIs are funded under the national arterial road program. On 3 June 1997, then transport minister John Sharp declared the Calder Highway, from its intersection with the Tullamarine Freeway at Essendon to the City of Mildura, and any deviations between these locations, to be a national arterial road. This enables the Calder Highway between Melbourne and Bendigo to be upgraded under the RONI classification, 50 per cent of which is funded by the Commonwealth from the national arterial road program. The remaining 50 per cent is funded by the state government.Treasurer Costello was very careful in his response to the Bendigo media during the 2001 election campaign when he said on 31 October 2001: Under our Government, the Commonwealth will continue to fund it—the Calder Highway—in partnership with the State Government. So, as the State Government commits to construction the Commonwealth will match the funding under the program of Roads of National Importance.The position is straightforward, as set out by the Federal Treasurer: the Calder upgrade to Bendigo is funded fifty-fifty, with the Commonwealth matching state funds when the state makes them available. On the web site of the Department of Transport and Regional Services, the last sentence on the `Transport programmes: roads of national importance' page states:The Government's election commitments will have priority.In spite of this, the federal government has not matched the state government's May 2002 commitment of $70 million. After all, that is the very reason for the Bendigo Plus petition being presented to federal parliament today.It is the responsibility of state governments to arrange planning studies, routes and tenders for construction. To this end, the Bracks government has determined that the Calder duplication to Bendigo should be completed by 2006 and has set out a strategy to achieve this in partnership with the Commonwealth's RONI program. It allocated $25 million, 50 per cent of the total cost, for the Carlsruhe section in its first budget. The federal government refused to commit its share of the funding and stalled the project for another 12 months.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MP83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—After a concerted campaign in which I raised the issue during several speeches in this parliament and after intense media coverage, the Howard government finally allocated its share of the costs, and the Carlsruhe project was commenced and is still under construction.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Bendigo needs no help from the member for Corangamite.83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—The Bracks government allocated a further $70 million in its last budget for the Faraday section, which is the next stage of the project. The Commonwealth has so far refused to commit to this stage, in spite of the Treasurer's pre-election 2001 commitment. The Commonwealth has also refused to commit to the 2006 finishing date. So the state government is committed to completing the duplication by 2006, but it can achieve this target only if the Howard government honours its election promise to Bendigo.Labor has been, and remains, totally committed to the Calder duplication. The conservative parties, state and federal, together with their spokespeople, have deliberately set out to obstruct and distort Labor's position because of the federal government's reluctance to honour its previous election commitment. I hope that the destructive distortion we have seen leading up to and during the state election campaign by Bendigo Plus and the Liberal and National candidates has not provided the Howard government with even more excuses not to honour its commitment to fund the rest of the Calder duplication.I notice my friend and colleague the member for Corangamite was quite vocal during this speech. I also noticed when I walked into the chamber tonight that he was looking around the seats where his colleagues sat during question time. I suspect he has been looking for some coins that may have inadvertently dropped out of their pockets and landed on the seats to add to his already incredible wealth.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I realise that was a good-natured exchange, but not one that would normally be tolerated in the parliament.995722:54:009957King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—There are many things that typify our nation and point to the nature of the Australian character. Most often they are associated with the summer months—our love of the bush and the beach and our relaxed outdoor lifestyles. For many of us the signs of summer—newborn calves and lambs, the flowering of wattle and jacaranda or the return of crowds to Bondi Beach—evoke something that does seem quintessentially Australian. The onset of summer this year, however, has reminded many in our community of how harsh the Australian climate can turn. The worsening of the drought and those bushfires that are ravaging parts of my state have brought great losses and pain to so many communities, families and individuals. As a person born and bred on the family farm in the north-west of New South Wales, the sight of drought ravaged lands is, for me, a particularly devastating one. This drought is more extensive than those of 1962 and 1974. It has hit feedstock prices, and the Australian Wheat Board is no longer able to supply adequate feed. In part because of the dry conditions and temperatures that have made the drought worse, we have seen the spectre of massive bushfires return again to the Sydney region and to other parts of New South Wales. The loss of one's home—one's castle, to use the cliche—is shattering. The home is so often the major investment for many Australians.Coming, as I do, from the most urbanised electorate in Australia on the eastern edge of Sydney, these may seem to be matters remote to the direct interests of my constituents, but I am constantly uplifted by the interest and concern of people in Wentworth for their country cousins. They have a clear understanding of the continuing strong linkages between the city and rural and regional Australia. What is heartening in times such as this is the way in which all Australians share the concerns of those directly affected or threatened by both the drought and the fires.We need not justify the physical reminders such as the possibility of water restrictions in Sydney or the smell of acrid smoke that has greeted us on so many mornings. All Australians know that when our agricultural sector is under strain our entire community suffers. All Australians can share the anguish of those affected by the fires and admire the bravery of the firefighters. I know that in Wentworth the drought and fires are at the forefront of people's minds and concerns at the moment. They therefore will welcome today's announcements of further assistance for farmers.In total, the Commonwealth anticipates providing over $700 million over three years to help those affected by the drought. I know from my own family in the New England district that the decision to assist eligible farmers with interim income support for up to six months throughout New South Wales will be particularly important. The additional support for interest rate subsidies for stock support and drought recovery is also great news for farmers. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on their generous but appropriate response to the crisis facing those on the land.I also know that residents of my electorate will welcome the $1 million fund in federal support that the Prime Minister announced last Friday to assist those affected by the bushfires. In addition, the Commonwealth will support the states through the national disaster relief arrangements. The federal contribution has matched that put forward by the state government in New South Wales. However, after the crisis is over, I hope that Premier Carr and the New South Wales government will evaluate whether there are further measures they can take to reduce the likelihood of fires reaching populated areas, such as we have seen this week.The New South Wales opposition has properly raised questions about New South Wales fire management practices and their adequacy. It is also time that the state government reviewed the support that it is giving to local councils to equip fire brigades, especially rural fire brigades. This has been a classic case of cost shifting that has stretched local councils, particularly in rural areas. The fire service levy imposed on these councils by the state government has increased dramatically in recent years, and little thought seems to have been given to the consequences of that on the often difficult financial situation of both country councils and shires. I am sure that all honourable members hope that the rain we have seen in some parts today is a precursor for good news to come. What better Christmas present could those affected by the drought or under threat from the fires have? 22:58:009959House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Notices9959The following notices were given:00AMRKing, Catherine, MPMs King to move:That this House:(1) recognises the importance of the Western Highway to the economic well-being of the towns and cities along the highway;(2) recognises that traffic congestion has increased with the development of housing estates at Deer Park, Burnside and Caroline Springs;(3) acknowledges that the Western Highway has suffered from sustained financial neglect that has in turn compromised the safety and integrity of the road;(4) further acknowledges that since 1998 there has been a total of 543 collisions on the Ballarat Highway between Anthony's Cutting and the Western Ring Road with 14 resulting in fatalities and 254 collisions resulting in serious injuries; and(5) calls on the Government to take steps to upgrade the Western Highway, including a commitment to the freeway standard link between the Western Highway and the Western Ring Road (Deer Park Bypass).83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall to move:That this House:(1) notes the Government's failure to deliver employment services that meet the needs of long term unemployed people; and(2) notes the ineffectiveness of the Job Network in assisting the long term unemployed re-enter the workforce.83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall to move:That this House calls on the Government to:(1) address the rapid decline in bulk billing;(2) ensure an equal distribution of access to health services for all Australians; and(3) ensure that quality health care is available to all Australians, not only those who can afford it.83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall to move:That this House:(1) recognises that Australia has an ageing population; and(2) calls on the Government to:(a) address the chronic shortage of aged care beds;(b) resolve the issues surrounding phantom beds;(c) provide more community care packages;(d) ensure that aged care resources are located in areas of greatest need; and(e) provide positive initiatives to improve the quality of life of older Australians.83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall to move:That this House calls on the Government to:(1) recognise the special needs of persons suffering from Acquired Brain Injury (ABI);(2) provide disability specific services that recognise the special needs of people suffering from ABI; and(3) introduce programs specifically designed to meet the needs of people suffering from ABI.Answers to Questions in Writing9960The following answers to questions were circulated:9960(Question No. 797 amended answer)7979960Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 20 August 2002:(1) How many (a) full time permanent staff, (b) part time permanent staff, (c) full time contract staff and (d) part time contract staff were employed by (i) the Ministers Department and (ii) agencies within the Ministers portfolio as at (A) 30 March 1996 and (B) 30 June 2002.(2) For each category of engagement referred to in part (1) and employed by (a) the Ministers Department and (b) agencies within the Ministers portfolio, where were such persons located in (i) 30 March 1996 and (ii) 30 June 2002.9960Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:This answer supersedes the answer that appeared printed in Hansard on 22 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)(i) and (2)(a)(ii)Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS):At 30 June 2002, DOTARS employed a total of 1093 operative staff (does not include staff on leave without pay in excess of three months who are classed as inoperative): Department of Transport and Regional Services Permanent (Ongoing)Contract (Non-Ongoing, Casuals)TotalFull TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeACT78549457886NSW1511219QLD152219NT22WA1712121SA718VIC1313TAS22Indian Ocean Territories8352013121Pacific Ocean Territories229415871231093These figures are recorded on the DOTARS human resource management information system (HRMIS).(1) (b)(ii) and (2)(b)(ii) National Capital Authority (NCA):At 30 June 2002, the NCA employed a total of 82 staff including: National Capital Authority PermanentContractTotalFull TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeACT55810982Civil Aviation Safety Authority(CASA): At 30 June 2002, the CASA employed 692 staff (excluding CASA Board members, compensation cases and invigilators) including:Civil Aviation Safety Authority PermanentContractTotalFull TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeACT3193265353NSW8787QLD995104NT1717WA23326SA2626VIC7621796476336692These figures are for contractors and employees recorded on the CASA HRMISAustralian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA): As at 30 June 2002, the AMSA employed 267 staff including:Australian Maritime Safety Authority PermanentContractTotalFull TimePart TimeFull TimePart TimeACT159929197NSW13114QLD20121NT22WA16117SA33TAS33VIC911022593302679961(Question No. 869)8699961Vamvakinou, Maria, MPMs Vamvakinou00AMTCalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Ageing, upon notice, on 27 August 2002:(1) On most recent data, how many nursing home beds are located within the electoral division of Calwell.(2) How many of these beds are in use.(3) How many allocated beds in the electoral division of Calwell are yet to be occupied.(4) Of the beds yet to be occupied and located within the electoral division of Calwell, when were the bed licences allocated. 9962Andrews, Kevin, MPMr AndrewsHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The electorate of Calwell is located in the Northern Metro and Western Metro Aged Care Planning Regions in Victoria.In June 2002 there were 5 739 residential aged care places (2 684 high care and 3 055 low care) allocated in the Northern Metro Aged Care Planning Region. In June 2002 there were 4 444 residential aged care places (1 820 high care and 2 624 low care) allocated in the Western Metro Aged Care Planning Region.(2) Taking into account places that have been provisionally allocated and places that are temporarily not available due to the restructuring of services, etc., in June 2002 there were 4 810 residential aged care places (2 559 high care and 2 251 low care) in use in the Northern Metro Aged Care Planning Region. In June 2002, there were 3 507 residential aged care places (1 575 high care and 1 932 low care) in use in the Western Metro Aged Care Planning Region(3) Including the places allocated in the 2001 Aged Care Approvals Round, in June 2002 there were 919 provisionally allocated residential aged care places (121 high care and 798 low care) in the Northern Metro Aged Care Planning Region. In June 2002 there 745 provisionally allocated residential aged care places (245 high care and 500 low care) in the Western Metro Aged Care Planning Region.(4) Under the Aged Care Act 1997, providers have a period of two years to bring provisionally allocated places on line.Provisionally Allocated Places in the Northern Metro Aged Care Planning RegionJune 2002 by Year of Allocation Year of AllocationHigh careLow careTotal19990110110199803030Total0140140Provisionally Allocated Places in the Western Metro Aged Care Planning RegionJune 2002 by Year of Allocation Year of AllocationHigh careLow careTotal199970321021998000Total70321029962(Question No. 871)8719962Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Sport, upon notice, on 28 August 2002:(1) What names were recently recommended by the Australia Council to the Minister for appointment to the Music Board of the Australia Council.(2) Were any of the names recommended for the Music Board of the Australia Council agreed to by the Minister; if not, why not.(3) What individuals were appointed to the Music Board of the Australia Council.(4) What were the criteria used for choosing these individuals rather than those recommended by the independent statutory authority.(5) What sum of Commonwealth funding does the Music Board of the Australia Council allocate to musicians in Australia annually.9962McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—The Minister for the Arts and Sport has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) In keeping with normal Government practice, details of individual nominations for appointments to Australia Council Boards are confidential.(2) Yes.(3) Ms Katie Noonan was appointed from 17 June 2002 and Fr Arthur Bridge OAM and Mrs Carol Day OAM were appointed from 24 July 2002. (4) The Minister considers all appointments to Australia Council Boards on the basis of the requirements of the Australia Council Act 1975 and the proposed appointee's ability to contribute effectively to the work of the Board, and with a view to ensuring that the Board has a reasonable gender and geographic balance and an appropriate spread of relevant expertise. (5) $3,830,000 in 2001-02.9963(Question No. 967)9679963Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 October 2002:(1) Has his attention been drawn to a statement issued on behalf of the Liberal Party and the Federal Government by the then Liberal candidate for Bendigo in the Bendigo Weekly on 9 November 2001, that the Federal Government had a firm commitment to match dollar for dollar with the State Government funding to complete the Calder to Bendigo duplication by 2006.(2) Will he honour the commitment.(3) Will he define 2006 as the Federal Governments target date with the State Government to complete the duplication.(4) Will he commit $70 million to match the $70 million already committed by the Victorian Government for the next stage of the duplication.9963Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) to (4) The Federal Government recognises the importance of the Calder Highway, and is fully committed to its progressive upgrading. It is for this reason that the Government declared the highway a Road of National Importance (RONI) in 1996.Around $100m has been allocated by the Commonwealth to Calder Highway upgrading and planning projects.The Victorian Government has repeatedly stated that its strategy for the Calder is to duplicate the highway to Bendigo by 2006. Given the Calder Highway is a state arterial road, responsibility for meeting the duplication strategy rests with the Victorian Government. The Federal Government for its part will, whenever possible, assist Victoria in meeting its strategy.The Federal Government has made significant commitments to other major projects in Victoria, identified by the Victorian Government as a high priority. These include the Craigieburn Bypass ($306m), the Scoresby Freeway ($445m), the Geelong Road ($120m) and the Murchison East Deviation ($90.4m). With funding fully committed to these high priority projects, there is currently little scope to commit funding in the immediate future to other Victorian projects. 9963(Question No. 1001)10019963Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Sport, upon notice, on 16 October 2002:Has the Government made a firm commitment to provide funding to ensure the proposed purpose-built building for the West Australian Symphony Orchestra will go ahead; if not, why not and when will it be forthcoming.9963McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—The Minister for the Arts and Sport has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Government has not made any commitment to provide funding for the new accommodation which has been proposed by the Western Australian Government for the West Australian Symphony Orchestra at the Perth Concert Hall site. While the Commonwealth Government funds national cultural institutions, such as the National Gallery of Australia and the National Library of Australia, capital funding for local and regional institutions is primarily the responsibility of the relevant State or local government. Any request for Commonwealth funding therefore needs to be considered in the broader context of the Budget. It was not possible to offer funding for the proposed new accommodation in the context of the 2002-03 Budget. 9964(Question No. 1041)10419964Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 October 2002:(1) With respect to the Minister's 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 Minister's 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 Minister's 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 Minister's Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff have any other forms of superannuation.9964Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised that as at 30 June 2002: (a)(b)(1)Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet130215Australian National Audit Office139143Australian Public Service Commission51106Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman3948Office of National Assessments3721Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security23Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General3445(a)(b)(2)Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 4143(i)99Australian National Audit Office4921(i)126Australian Public Service Commission2025(i)26Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman1513(i)67Office of National Assessments153(i)71Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security22(i)11Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General68(i)47(i) CSS additional contributions(a)(b)(3)Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet86154(i)2145(ii)2631Australian National Audit Office89120(i)2622(ii)3154Australian Public Service Commission2873(i)529(ii)1315Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman1929(i)45(ii)77Office of National Assessments2218(i)116(ii)42Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security01(i)00(ii)00Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General2533(i)612(ii)39(a)(b)(4)Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet318Australian National Audit Office12Australian Public Service Commission38Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman56Office of National Assessments00Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security00Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General349965(Question No. 1042)10429965Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 October 2002:(1) With respect to the Minister's 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 Minister's 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 Minister's 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 Minister's Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff have any other form of superannuation.9965Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Department of Transport and Regional ServicesThe following answer includes ongoing and non-ongoing staff paid through the Department's payroll system as at 30 June 2002 and uses 5% as the superannuation contribution default rate.(1) (a) 579 male staff (b) 514 female staff(2) (a) 195 male staff are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) and 41 have elected to pay additional superannuation contributions. (b) 99 female staff are members of the CSS and 37 have elected to pay additional contributions(3) (a) 313 male staff are members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) (i) 85 of whom have elected to pay additional contributions (ii) 72 of whom have elected to pay reduced superannuation contributions (b) 330 female staff are members of the PSS (i) 93 of whom have elected to pay additional contributions (ii) 66 of whom have elected to pay reduced contributions(4) (a) 21 male staff are members of Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust (AGEST) however, only three of these pay the employee contribution, 47 male staff from the Indian Ocean Territories are members of Westfund and one male staff member is a member of CPSL Masterfund. Two male staff do not contribute to any fund as they have reached their Maximum Benefit Limit (MBL).44 female staff are members of AGEST and 41 female staff are members of Westfund.Civil Aviation Safety AuthorityThe following answer includes details as at 30 June 2002 and uses 5% as the superannuation default rate.(1) (a) 492 male staff (b) 200 female staff(2) (a) 92 male staff are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) and 29 have elected to pay additional contributions. (b) 18 female staff are members of the CSS and 4 have elected to pay additional contributions(3) (a) 291 male staff are members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) (i) 107 of whom have elected to pay additional contributions (ii) 66 of whom have elected to pay reduced superannuation contributions (b) 143 female staff are members of the PSS (i) 28 of whom have elected to pay additional contributions (ii) 82 of whom have elected to pay reduced contributions(4) (a) 109 male staff have elected to pay to other superannuation funds (b) 39 female staff have elected to pay to other superannuation fundsAustralian Maritime Safety AuthorityThe following answer includes details as at 30 June 2002 and uses 5% as the superannuation contribution default rate.(1) (a) 184 male staff (b) 59 female staff(2) (a) 42 male staff are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) and 17 have elected to pay additional contributions. (b) 9 female staff are members of the CSS and 3 have elected to pay additional contributions(3) (a) 130 male staff are members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) (i) 54 of whom have elected to pay additional contributions (ii) 20 of whom have elected to pay reduced contributions (b) 46 female staff are members of the PSS (i) 9 of whom have elected to pay additional contributions (ii) 24 of whom have elected to pay reduced contributions(4) (a) 10 male staff make contributions through AMSA to another fund, 2 male staff do not make superannuation contributions through AMSA(b) 8 female staff make contributions through AMSA to another fund.National Capital AuthorityThe following answer includes details as at 30 June 2002 and uses 5% as the superannuation contribution default rate.(1) (a) 42 male staff (b) 48 female staff(2) (a) 3 male staff are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) none of whom have elected to pay additional contributions. (b) 3 female staff are members of the CSS and 2 have elected to pay additional contributions (3) (a) 32 male staff are members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) (i) 5 have elected to pay additional contributions (ii) 7 have elected to pay reduced contributions (b) 39 female staff are members of the PSS (i) 7 have elected to pay additional contributions (ii) 11 have elected to pay reduced contributions(4) (a) 7 male staff contribute to other superannuation funds (b) 6 female staff contribute to other superannuation fundsNote: The Authority's response to a previous Question on Notice (Numbers 797 and 818) did not include 8 casual staff included in the above figures.9967(Question No. 1093)10939967McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, 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.9967Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations' (DEWR) current certified agreement provides for a number of flexible working arrangements to assist employees in balancing their work and personal lives, including:· Flexible working hours;· Flextime;· Regular part-time work;· Working from home;· Personal leave, which may be used for short term caring purposes or to provide support for family members;· Purchased leave, which allows staff to purchase additional leave by way of a fortnightly deduction from their salary;· Maternity and parental leave; and· Access to other leave including carers leave, bereavement leave, long service leave and annual leave.DEWR has family rooms available to enable employees to carry out aspects of their normal work while caring for a family member or as a facility for nursing mothers.The DEWR Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) provides a confidential counselling service to assist employees with a wide range of personal and/or work related concerns.9967(Question No. 1095)10959967McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, 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.9967Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department of the Environment and Heritage implements policies and practices to assist employees balance work and family responsibilities. These are implemented through the Environment Australia Certified Agreement 2002-2004 and include:· Flexible Working Arrangement Flextime for staff at the EA1-6 levelExecutive Level flexible working arrangementsPart-time Work/Job SharingHome Based Work· Leave arrangementsAdoption LeaveChristmas/New Year ShutdownCommunity LeaveCrisis LeaveLong Service LeaveMaternity LeaveParental LeavePersonal LeavePurchased LeaveRecreation LeaveSick Leave· Employee Assistance Program· Extra Care Dependant Costs· Study Support Scheme.9968(Question No. 1100)11009968McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, 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.9968Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NelsonRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) has implemented a range of policies and practices through its current Certified Agreement to assist employees to balance work and family responsibilities. These include: Flextime - the flextime provisions allow DEST Level 3 and below employees and their managers to vary working hours and patterns to provide maximum organisational flexibility while assisting employees to manage their work and life responsibilities. Part-time work - the Department encourages the use of part time working arrangements while taking account of operational requirements. Purchased Annual Leave - currently, an employee may purchase an additional 4 weeks leave per year (to be extended to 8 weeks in the new Certified Agreement which is awaiting certification by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC)).Maternity Leave - an employee may access 12 weeks paid maternity leave (may be taken as 24 weeks on half pay in the new Certified Agreement) and up to another 40 weeks of paid or unpaid leave where entitlements are available including access to part time employment on return to work. Personal Leave - paid personal leave is available to an employee for a range of situations including:· caring responsibilities for occasional non-enduring situations· accompanying family members to legal, medical or dental appointments· emergency interpreting for a family member· attending ceremonies of religious or cultural significance which involves family members.Working from Home Policy - a number of employees access our working from home provisions as, in certain circumstances, it is recognised that there are benefits to both employees and the Department. Carer's Room - facilities have been provided for employees to care for dependants on an emergency or occasional basis, including for nursing mothers to breastfeed.Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) - provides support for all DEST employees and their families, including people in remote areas and overseas locations. The nationally accessible counselling service provides a confidential, short term and solution-focused approach for both work and personal related concerns. The DEST Workplace Diversity Plan - current to 2003, provides the overarching foundation for developing and maintaining an inclusive workplace environment that is free from discrimination and harassment and one that values, uses and benefits from the contributions of people of different backgrounds, lifestyles, experiences and perspectives.Family Care Expenses - our policy provides for the reimbursement of additional childcare costs where a DEST employee who is the sole or primary carer of a dependant child is required to travel away from home overnight for operational reasons. (The new Certified Agreement extends the reimbursement to include any family member.)School Holiday Care Allowance - the new Certified Agreement provides for the Department to contribute to the cost of school holiday care for primary school age children of employees, when the employee is at work.Paternity Leave - the new Certified Agreement introduces paid Paternity Leave for an employee (who is the not the primary care giver) which may be taken as 1 week on full pay or 2 weeks on half pay immediately following the birth or adoption of the child.Adoption Leave - the new Certified Agreement introduces 6 weeks paid adoption leave for an employee who is the primary care giver. 9969(Question No. 1113)11139969Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 November 2002:(1) Which councils are the minimum grant councils referred to on page 66 of the submission made by his Department to the inquiry into local government by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration in July 2002.(2) What is the Australian Classification of Local Governments category for each of these minimum grant councils.9969Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In 2000-01 (the date referred to on page 66 of the Departmental submission) there were 71 councils on the minimum grant. The councils and their corresponding Australian Classification of Local Governments (ACLG) were: StateName of CouncilACLGNSWBaulkham HillsUrban Fringe Very LargeNSWBurwoodUrban Development MediumNSWConcordUrban Development SmallNSWDrummoyneUrban Development MediumNSWHornsby Urban Fringe Very LargeNSWHunters HillUrban Development SmallNSWHurstville Urban Development LargeNSWKogarah Urban Development MediumNSWKu-ring-gaiUrban Development LargeNSWLane Cove Urban Development MediumNSWManlyUrban Development MediumNSWMosman Urban Development SmallNSWNorth SydneyUrban Development MediumNSWPittwaterUrban Development MediumNSWRandwick Urban Development Very LargeNSWRyde Urban Development LargeNSWStrathfield Urban Development SmallNSWSutherland Urban Development Very LargeNSWSydney Urban Capital CityNSWWarringahUrban Development Very LargeNSWWilloughby Urban Development MediumNSWWoollahra Urban Development MediumVICBayside Urban Development LargeVICBoroondara Urban Development Very LargeVICDocklands AuthorityUrban Development SmallVICGlen Eira Urban Development Very LargeVICMelbourneUrban Capital CityVICMonash Urban Development Very LargeVICPort Phillip Urban Development LargeVICStonnington Urban Development LargeVICYarra Urban Development MediumQLDBeaudesertUrban Fringe MediumQLDBrisbaneUrban Capital CityQLDCabooltureUrban Fringe LargeQLDCaloundraUrban Regional LargeQLDGold CoastUrban Regional Very LargeQLDLoganUrban Development Very LargeQLDMaroochyUrban Fringe Very LargeQLDPine RiversUrban Fringe LargeQLDRedlandUrban Fringe LargeWABayswater Urban Development MediumWABelmont Urban Development SmallWACambridge Urban Development SmallWACanning Urban Development LargeWAClaremont Urban Development SmallWACockburn Urban Fringe MediumWACottesloe Urban Development SmallWAEast Fremantle Urban Development SmallWAFremantle Urban Development SmallWAJoondalup Urban Fringe Very LargeWAMandurah Urban Regional MediumWAMelville Urban Development LargeWAMosman Park Urban Development SmallWANedlands Urban Development SmallWAPeppermint Grove Urban Development SmallWAPerth Urban Capital CityWARockingham Urban Fringe MediumWASouth Perth Urban Development MediumWAStirling Urban Development Very LargeWASubiacoUrban Development SmallWASwan Urban Fringe LargeWAVictoria Park Urban Development SmallWAVincent Urban Development SmallWAWanneroo Urban Fringe LargeSABurnside Urban Development MediumSAMitcham Urban Development MediumSARoxby Downs Urban Regional SmallSAUnley Urban Development MediumSAWalkerville Urban Development SmallTASGlenorchy Urban Regional MediumTASHobart Urban Capital City