2002-12-104013REPS997302002-12-10—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice9973997314:31:009973Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—My question is to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Does the minister recall her statement yesterday that the DIDS contract would save $290 million? Didn't the Department of Defence admit that $210 million would be saved prior to and independently of the DIDS contract, which has not yet been signed with Tenix? Minister, can you confirm that the $290 million figure you have attributed to the Tenix DIDS contract includes the savings of the Department of Defence, leaving just $80 million over 10 years that might be saved through the DIDS contract with Tenix? Minister, is it not a fact that the DIDS contract will result in a saving of eight per cent against the revised target baseline cost of the function, well below the 30 per cent target? Minister, when will you tell the House the real story?9973Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I answered this question in detail yesterday, and I have no intention of adding anything further.997314:33:009973Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask: what is the outcome of the inquiry conducted by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into whether there was intelligence warning of the terrorist attack in Bali on 12 October this year?9973Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Fadden for his question, which I know covers a subject of interest to all members of this House. The House will recall that on 16 October an inquiry to be conducted by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Mr Bill Blick, was requested by me to determine whether any warning of the Bali attacks might have been possible from the intelligence material available to the government. The terms of reference for the inquiry, conducted under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act, were set out in a letter to Mr Blick from me on 23 October. They were: to review all relevant intelligence available to Australian intelligence and security agencies and associated intelligence assessment processes, to establish whether there was any information that warned of the bomb attack in Bali on 12 October 2002 and to propose relevant recommendations in the light of Mr Blick's findings. It was subsequently agreed that Mr Blick would also review Australian Federal Police information, in addition to intelligence reporting, to establish whether this might have provided any warning of the attack.Mr Blick wrote to me yesterday, on 9 December, to report the results of his inquiry so far. Mr Blick noted that he had extensively reviewed the intelligence records of the relevant agencies to identify information of possible relevance to the inquiry. His initial report notes that it does not cover some foreign language intelligence material collected in the period shortly before the Bali attack that needs more detailed examination. In Mr Blick's judgment this material is unlikely to contain relevant information, but to exclude this possibility the inspector-general will examine the material in detail. This will take some time and a second and final report will be provided when this process is completed. I table two unclassified extracts from the inspector-general's report. The first is the introduction and a summary of his findings. The second is an annex containing intelligence agency responsibilities. I offer the Leader of the Opposition a briefing on the full report and a personal opportunity for him to read that report in full. Parts of the report are highly classified and include the original text of key intelligence reports.The core conclusion of the inspector-general's inquiry, subject to the further work I have mentioned, is that there was no intelligence warning of the 12 October terrorist attacks in Bali. As I indicated to the parliament on 16 October, and as Mr Blick notes, one intelligence report obtained from foreign liaison sources mentioned various places, including Bali, as possible locations of terrorist activity. Such activity was dependent upon certain specified circumstances. Those circumstances did not eventuate in the time between receipt of the intelligence and the attack in Bali on 12 October. The inspector-general goes on to observe that he has been advised that it is clear from the Bali investigations that these circumstances were not relevant to the Bali attack. The report further notes that no other intelligence was received that specified Bali as a likely or possible location for a terrorist attack. Indeed, the inspector-general concludes that, even with the benefit of hindsight and knowledge of possible and likely perpetrators, the inquiry could not construe any intelligence, even intelligence not mentioning Bali, as possibly providing warning of an attack. As I indicated earlier, I also invited Mr Blick to propose relevant recommendations in the light of his findings. Mr Blick has indicated that he does not believe any recommendations are necessary.997414:38:009974Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—My question is to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Does the minister recall her statement yesterday that the total cost of the new torpedoes which are too heavy for our submarines will be $263 million? Is the minister aware that on 21 November this year, when specifically asked about the total cost of this project, the relevant Defence official stated that it will `require us to commit the full $450 million when we make a decision to move forward'. Minister, doesn't this admission by the Department of Defence expose a $187 million hole in your defence of Peter Reith's mismanagement? Minister, will you come clean on just how much taxpayers will have to spend to buy torpedoes that are too heavy for our submarines?9974Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I answered this question yesterday and I do not intend to go into it any further.997414:40:009974Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of recent developments in the peace process between the Free Aceh Movement and the government of Indonesia?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs—the Minister for Foreign Affairs.9974Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Things aren't going so well for me today, Mr Speaker.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—You are a veteran foreign affairs minister; you're very good.4G4Mr DOWNER—A veteran foreign affairs minister; that is right. Thank you, Prime Minister. I thank the honourable member for Curtin for her question. She is the chair of the government's backbench foreign affairs committee and obviously has a great interest in issues within the region.It is hardly surprising that the government warmly welcomes the peace agreement between the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement, which is known as GAM. The agreement is an important step forward, we hope, in bringing to an end the hostilities that have plagued Aceh now for very many years. The agreement does provide for the cessation of hostilities, an international cease-fire monitoring group and participation in the 2004 elections in which GAM members will be able to run for election. Australia would urge all leaders and their communities to embrace this new chance with the optimism it deserves. Clearly, we are not sure, but we very much hope that the agreement will prove to be the success that it deserves to be.I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Indonesian government: in particular, President Megawati; Bambang Yudhoyono, the coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs; and Hassan Wirayuda, the foreign minister, on their extraordinarily hard work; and also the Henri Dunant Centre for its valuable work in bringing the parties together. The Australian government will do what it can to assist this peace process. We will contribute $2 million towards the implementation of the peace agreement at this stage. Our contribution will help fund an international cease-fire monitoring group. The group will have a key role in monitoring the adherence of the parties, the Indonesian government and GAM, to their undertakings under the peace agreement. Foreign Minister Wirayuda has written to me already thanking Australia for its contribution and noting his government's continuing commitment to ending the conflict in Aceh. We are pleased to be part of an international effort which is supporting the excellent efforts of both parties as they move towards reconciling the conflict that has affected so many people for so long. Let me just reiterate, in conclusion, the commonly spoken position of the Australian government that we support Indonesia's unity, we support Indonesia's territorial integrity and we support its efforts to resolve its internal difficulties through both dialogue and negotiation. The peace agreement and the special autonomy law for Aceh are important steps towards securing a durable political solution but within the framework of something that we strongly support—and that is a united Indonesia.14:44:009975Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Griffith has the call. I have extended it to him and I will hear him. He is aware of the confines. It is unusual for this to happen during question time, but I will allow him to continue.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—I appreciate that very much, Mr Speaker. I simply express on behalf of the opposition our appreciation and support for this quite remarkable breakthrough in what we hope will be a lasting peace settlement in Aceh. Aceh has been a longstanding source of insecurity in the Indonesian archipelago. This is a good breakthrough; we welcome it. On behalf of the opposition, we congratulate the government of Indonesia for its efforts.997514:44:009975Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in your additional answer provided to the House last week concerning the involvement of former defence minister Reith in the contracts for the defence integrated distribution system, why did you neglect to mention that former minister Reith had privileged access to information about all tender bids during the first round of tenders for DIDS? As a result of Peter Reith's special knowledge, wasn't he in a position to advise Tenix on how to remedy the deficiencies in their original bid? Prime Minister, wasn't Mr Reith also uniquely placed to advise Tenix about confidential information concerning all the other competing tenders?9975Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Part of that question is a question and another part of it is an assertion. I will deal with the question. There was nothing inadequate about the answer I gave. It was purely factual. It was not misleading, and there was nothing deliberately omitted.997514:45:009975Ticehurst, Kenneth, MPMr TICEHURST00ANFDobellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Science. Would the minister inform the House of the areas that will benefit from today's announcement of funding for the cooperative research centres?9975McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—I thank the honourable member for Dobell for his question. He numbers amongst those with scientific or engineering qualifications in this place; hence his special interest in all things science and innovation. Following on from the Prime Minister's announcement last week of national priorities, the government announced today a record amount of funding for the cooperative research centres program of $480 million for 30 cooperative research centre grants. Especially important is the fact that this new funding flows from Backing Australia's Ability, the government's innovation strategy. It is an unstoppable bandwagon and the opposition would be well advised to jump on board, and we would welcome them.The CRCs, cooperative research centres, bring together universities, research agencies and industry in a cooperative way for material outcomes for commercialisation of intellectual property—LN6Hatton, Michael, MPET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Blaxland and the member for Brisbane!XH4Mr McGAURAN—and allow Australia to maintain its competitive leading edge technology, and provide businesses with opportunities to work with research institutions and to focus on research relevant to Australia's needs. This round of funding will benefit a wide range of sectors, and a number of ministers have been supportive and have encouraged applications for funding from within their areas of responsibility. The environment sector will receive more than $145 million; medical science more than $80 million; and mining and energy more than $68 million. The member for Dobell, who has been involved in the invention as a designer of high voltage switch gear, will be particularly interested in the boost to energy technology. He has also been involved in their manufacture. Information and communication technology will receive $46 million and manufacturing technology will receive $15 million. Amongst all of the worthwhile cooperative research centres announced today was $110 million for a bushfire national research centre, into which the Commonwealth will inject $25 million. This is the first time that dispersed researchers in universities, CSIRO and state agencies will come together and work in total collaboration with the end users—the firefighting agencies. Every state and territory is represented and has invested very heavily in this new national bushfire research centre. Importantly, because the profile of the fire researchers is ageing, up to 40 postgraduate students will work with the centre over the next few years and get a degree in fire research.I wish to thank all of the researchers both in government agencies and in universities who have joined with business partners to make applications and succeeded. They are adding to the social and economic prosperity of our nation. I close with a thank you to Dr Geoff Vaughan, chairman of the CRC selection committee, and his colleagues for their hard work and their application in this demanding task. When the Prime Minister made the announcement on national priorities last week, he said that it was evidence of the government placing science and technology at the crossroads of all government activity and of the supreme importance we attach to science and innovation. Today's announcement gives effect to those words.997614:49:009976Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can he confirm that Mr Reith did have privileged access to all tender documents associated with the first bid for the DIDS contract? Can the minister confirm that each of the defence contract tenderers for that DIDS bid was entitled to a special payment of $1 million as compensation for the extraordinary and unprecedented cancellation of that tender process? Can the Prime Minister also confirm that Mr Reith's new employer, Tenix, was a recipient of this $1 million payment and then won the contract? Prime Minister, is there not a clear conflict of interest when a minister makes a million-dollar payment to a firm and is then employed by that firm immediately after leaving parliament and the firm is then awarded a government contract?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, the Prime Minister has the call.9976Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Obviously, as the Minister for Defence, the former member for Flinders would have had access to an enormous number of things. Whether he had access to this particular information, without inquiry I have no way of either—ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have no way of either confirming or denying that. It is self-evidently something that would have to be the subject of inquiry and I do not intend to confirm or deny it without making inquiry. Could I just remind the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of the time line in relation to this matter. The DIDS project had its genesis in the Defence Efficiency Review of 1997. The tender documentation relating to the original DIDS tender was issued in November of 1999 when the former member for Ryan was the defence minister. The government decided on or about 9 July, or late in June or early in July, to discontinue that tender process. As to exactly when the payments of $1 million were made, I do not know. I would imagine that they were made fairly soon afterwards. That was in July. Mr Reith, to my understanding, did not join Tenix until around about December or perhaps January of this year—I do not know the exact date. I have not seen it as something that I should carry around in my mind. The fundamental point about the whole of this is that Tenix was selected ultimately as the result of a competitive tender process. Unless the opposition can provide some evidence of wrongdoing by the former minister, this assumes nothing other than the vendetta the Labor Party are conducting against a very able former minister. I know he did you a lot of damage when he was a minister, and I know the Labor Party remember the former member for Flinders very well because he hit you very hard where it hurts. That is why. This has nothing to do with principle. They have never got over April 1998, when Peter Reith was prepared to do something that preceding industrial relations ministers on both sides of politics had lacked the courage to do. You pursue Peter Reith because you hate anybody on our side of politics who has the courage and the capacity to break the stranglehold of the unions.84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Swan occupies this chair and knows the standing orders. He is aware that interjections are out of order.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. My question was clearly about the conflict of interest where a former minister reissues contracts after he has announced his intention to resign from parliament and then gets employed by the company that wins.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister was asked a question about the issuing of tenders and a compensation package.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. My question did include the conflict of interest. If you are going to paraphrase my question, at least do it properly.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—As I told the House last week, the government decided to discontinue the tender process in late June or early July of last year, as the result of a cabinet deliberation, on the basis that it did not provide sufficient opportunity to allow tenderers to offer innovative solutions in accordance with commercial best practice, nor did it sufficiently recognise the importance of maintaining jobs in rural and regional Australia. That is the reason it was terminated. I remember the process very well. There were a number of members representing rural and regional electorates, and most of them were on our side of the House because we are the only two parties that have an interest in it. The reason we discontinued the old process was that there was insufficient regard being paid. That is the reason. It had nothing to do with the particular preferences of the former defence minister. This is of a piece with the grubby obsession of the opposition with somebody who inflicted immense political damage on them because he had the courage and the backbone to stand up for the interests of ordinary Australians and was not willing to bow to sectional, union driven interest groups.997714:58:009977Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the results of the business surveys released today by the National Australia Bank and the Australian Industry Group? What do the results indicate about the performance of the Australian economy? How does this compare with international experience?9977Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. When you think of the challenges the Australian economy faces these days with international weakness, with the threat of terrorism and war, and with a very severe drought, it manages to show considerable resilience. Today the NAB monthly business survey reported that business conditions remained resilient in November. The National Australia Bank said that the survey is reporting levels of business activity that are still considerably north of four per cent annualised growth in the non-farm sector—which I think members will welcome—and that the non-farm sector is showing considerable resilience, notwithstanding a very severe drought, which is detracting from overall growth and leading to declining farm incomes. In addition to that, the Australian Industry Group survey of manufacturing for the December quarter found a strengthening in manufacturing activity, with a net balance of 24 per cent of firms reporting higher production, which was the strongest result since 1994. So manufacturing continues to show resilience as well. I think people on both sides of the House will welcome that.About a fortnight ago, I was at a meeting of the G20—the 20 countries systemically important to the world financial system—in Delhi. Anne Krueger, the deputy managing director, was interviewed after that meeting. She said this—a very interesting observation:I keep telling people the world economy is not as bad as they think. They look at Japan, the US and Europe and forget some of the small industrialised countries such as Australia and Canada which are doing well.So we have the deputy managing director of the IMF now saying that maybe Japan, Europe and America are not doing so well but the bright spot out there is the Australian economy.We had the national accounts last week, which also confirmed, notwithstanding drought, resilience. I note that the Labor Party are yet to ask a question about the national accounts which were released last week and are yet to ask a question about the mid-year review which was released the week before. I guess nothing could be a greater testament to the resilience of the Australian economy than the fact that the Labor Party have fallen silent in asking questions in relation to it.I thought that the House might be interested in the Economist magazine and the forecast that it has this week. The Economist poll forecast Australia to lead the growth stakes in 2002 and 2003. Seeing as this is an important cricket day, I know the Prime Minister will welcome this statement. The Economist magazine said this week:Australia is doing well not just on the cricket pitch but in the growth league: it heads the table of all 15 countries both this year and next.I think in all fairness we could say of the British that their economy is doing better than their cricket team, which was 8-150 a short time ago. The British economy is strong by European standards, forecast to grow at 1.6 per cent in 2002 and 2.5 per cent in 2003. So Britain is certainly stronger than most of the European economies, but Australia is leading not only in cricket but also in terms of growth.Having said that, it is a difficult period. The drought in particular is of concern to Australian growth prospects. But the non-farm GDP continues to show resilience and part of that is the changes that this government put in place over the last seven years, in particular the new tax system, which was the best thing to happen to the manufacturing industry because we took the indirect tax burden off manufacturing and gave manufacturing a much better go. We recall that the Australian Labor Party said tax reform would ruin the Australian economy. We recall the member for Hotham with his Hockey Bear pyjamas and his salads in plastic bags telling us that, if we reformed the taxation system, we would be in recession. Eighteen months after the reform of the Australian tax system, Australia leads the world.There is a phrase you do not hear much about in this parliament any more. I have not heard the `r' word for quite some time. Let us remind them what it was: rollback. We have not heard `rollback' for the last 18 months or so, and no wonder. It was cheapjack opportunism, better forgotten and better buried, along with the economic policy of the member for Hotham.997815:04:009978Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it goes to his last answer and the time line associated with the DIDS contract. Isn't it the case that the DIDS contracts first issued were cancelled on 9 July, 11 days after Peter Reith announced his intention not to recontest at the next election? Isn't it also true that on leaving parliament Peter Reith was employed by Tenix? Isn't it also true that in his capacity as minister he would have had access to the details associated with the first round, which would have put him in a privileged position to advise Tenix, his new employer, on how to correct their first bid? Prime Minister, when will you report back to this House on this clear conflict of interest? 9979Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In relation to the last part of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, whenever it is appropriate for me to provide additional information to the House I will. I am aware of that obligation. The cancellation occurred either early in July or late June. I will find out precisely the date. It is true that Mr Reith announced his intention not to recontest around that time. It is also true that Mr Reith informed me some six or nine months earlier than the announcement that there was a possibility. In fact, he informed me at the time I appointed him Defence minister that there was a possibility that for a combination of family and personal reasons he might not contest.But what I find particularly illuminating about this is this new-found passion for ministers not ever taking commercial positions. I did not hear people complaining about the former minister for communications Senator Richardson taking a high-profile position. I do not criticise him for it—let me make it perfectly clear that I do not. I do not criticise Graham Richardson for what he did. What I criticise is your hypocrisy.Graham Richardson joined Publishing and Broadcasting in 1994. He took a bit of time off to write a book, which I remember reviewing—it did not take long—and he joined PBL pretty soon after that. I do not remember the Leader of the Opposition criticising John Kerin, who was a minister between 1983 and—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—But he had some integrity.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Thank you very much—`Out of the mouths ...' This is nothing other than a personal vendetta against Peter Reith. You have demonstrated out of your own mouth with that stupid interjection that this is what it is all about. Thank you very much, Lindsay Tanner.Government members—No, it was Gavie.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, it was Gavie—I am sorry. I thank the member for Corio. I thank him very, very warmly. If you have a meeting of the tactics committee, you should keep the discussion to yourself; you should not come in here and say, `Let's continue the vendetta against Peter Reith.' This is a vendetta against a man who laid you low on industrial relations, and that is why you are carrying on this campaign. Nobody in the Labor Party objected about John Kerin taking positions with the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Midfield Meat Management, the CRC for Temperate Hardwood Forestry, the CRC for Australian Weed Management, and Biologic International. Let me say, I think John Kerin is a very fine person. I think he was a person of integrity. I did not agree with his politics on a lot of things, but I have no complaint about him taking on those positions any more than I have got any complaint about Graham Richardson. I have a complaint against a Labor Party that cannot get over the fact that, in Peter Reith, they have somebody who had the courage to do something to clean up the Australian waterfront. The Australian waterfront had needed reform for years and, in Peter Reith, Australia at long last found somebody who had the intestinal fortitude to do it. The strength of the Australian economy, of which the Treasurer spoke so eloquently a few moments ago, is owed in part to the industrial relations reforms of Peter Reith, of which the reform of the Australian waterfront bulks very large. That is why you are carrying on this vendetta, as confirmed by the member for Corio with his very helpful interjection. This is why you are carrying on this vendetta—it has nothing to do with principle; it has got everything to do with the fact that you cannot get over the fact that Reith hit you hard where it hurt.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I would remind all members that whenever I have to call their attention their constituents all recognise that they are the people who are interrupting the House. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, to facilitate the Prime Minister reporting back expeditiously to the House, can I seek leave to table a media release from the then minister, Peter Reith, on 9 July cancelling the DIDS contract and a media release from him on 29 June in which he announced his intention not to stand again. The Prime Minister owes this House an explanation—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat!LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—You keep defending your rorting mates, Howard!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman is warned!Leave granted.998015:10:009980Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister inform the House of the reaction by farmers and other community organisations to the government's $368 million additional drought assistance package announced yesterday. Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—The old jughead.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa is warned!9980Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Parkes for his question. His constituents are amongst the many who have benefited from the announcements that the federal government made yesterday to provide $368 million of additional assistance to drought-stricken farmers around Australia. The package includes immediate income support and interest rate subsidies for farmers who are suffering a deprivation of rain of a one in 20 magnitude over the previous nine months. The announcement also included some assistance for small business in drought-affected areas.I am pleased to report to the House that farm industry and other organisations have enthusiastically embraced these new measures. The National Farmers Federation commended the government on this particular initiative as an appropriate response to one of the worst droughts on record. I was pleased to note the support, too, from the Australian Local Government Association and the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, who have particularly acknowledged the fact that, for the first time in a drought, assistance will be available for adversely affected small business. Even the New South Wales Farmers Federation was able to say some kind things—which we do not hear from them all that often—about this package. I did note that they were critical of the interest subsidies that we are providing only two weeks after they asked for precisely that kind of response from the government. So sometimes the responses that we are getting from these organisations are inconsistent.The member asked whether there were any alternative policies. I note in response to the package that the shadow minister for agriculture in the other place dusted off the Labor Party's six-point plan as their response to the needs of drought. Putting aside the fact that many of the announcements made were actually made two months after the government had put them in place and the other measures provide very little, this demonstrates how bankrupt the opposition is when it comes to providing real assistance to farmers. The farmers of Australia need to be aware of the fact that, under Labor's six-point plan, thousands of farmers would not have received any special assistance yesterday, they would not have received the interim assistance that we have been providing under exceptional circumstances arrangements, and most of them would not even get EC support for many months.The reality is that Labor in this House has just been an apologist for state governments who are not prepared to do anything to support the farmers in their states. If you think the farmers are doing well from state benefits, you should look at their own acknowledgments. The Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales, in his last letter to me lodging another series of exceptional circumstances applications, admitted that his government had not provided any assistance at all to the farmers in that area. Yet, he was asking the federal government to provide exceptional circumstances assistance. The Queensland minister is now demanding that we add areas to this interim support—areas that he does not provide any support for. That is typical of Labor's approach to these sorts of issues. While the Commonwealth has provided over $1 billion in commitments to farmers and small businesses through this drought period, the combined efforts of the states total only $55 million—and that is only the promises. What they have actually delivered is infinitely less.This government is helping farmers in need. We know the problems they are facing are genuine and real. We are looking at ways in which we can ensure that our benefits flow quickly and with the minimum of paperwork. We want to ensure that assistance is provided in a timely way to help people through this difficult time so that we can again contribute towards building a much stronger rural Australian economy.998115:16:009981O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Minister, are you aware of the Navy's concerns that training for technical and combat roles has been neglected because the Navy has been forced to carry out coastguard duties? Are you aware of the comments by the Deputy Chief of Navy in June when he said:... at some stage we will need to find ways to ensure that the skill degradation or knowledge lost [at Navy] does not go to such a low level that it is lost forever?Minister, with skills being lost and morale falling at Navy as the Navy frigates continue to undertake coastguard work, isn't it time to introduce the real thing—to establish an Australian coastguard and allow the Navy to return to its war fighting functions?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Bass must be—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—She is just making up for the brevity of the answer.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Wills does have a point. The member for Bass must be aware that that question advanced more argument than would normally be tolerated.9981Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the honourable member for her question but I fail to see how three patrol boats can actually replace that of 15 and do it effectively. However, I argue against the allegations that the Navy is losing expertise or indeed capacity. As a matter of fact, I refute that totally.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume her seat. More frequently than any other individual in this House, I have to draw the Leader of the Opposition's attention to the standing orders. I endeavour to ensure when he is asked a question that civility is extended to him and I expect that to be reciprocated. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs.VK6Mrs VALE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refute that because of the evidence. Right now, we have two of our naval vessels in the Gulf and they are doing an exceptional job. As a matter of fact, I could honestly say the Australian Navy is the mightiest little navy in the world. I say this for some very real reasons. It may be totally—84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for McMillan! The minister has the call.83ERipoll, Bernie, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Oxley!WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—It is McHale's Navy.VK6Mrs VALE—I think for the member for Corio to suggest the comment that I just heard is an absolute disgrace.Government members interjecting—VK6Mrs VALE—The member for Corio referred to our Navy as `McHale's Navy'.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume her seat. The Minister for Foreign Affairs! The Minister for Small Business and Tourism! The member for Corio will resume his seat. The minister has the call. She will not respond to interjections. VK6Mrs VALE—The fact is, since our Navy has been involved in the multinational coalition force against terrorism in the Gulf, the Australian Navy has been punching a lot higher than its weight. It may be unknown to the members on the other side that the Australian Navy has been sharing command with the United States Navy on a rotational basis.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—It is a coastguard.VK6Mrs VALE—No. The allegation that our Navy is somehow lacking capacity is a real concern to me. We have over 1,000—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister will resume her seat. The member for Fowler will resume her seat.9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Sturt! The member for Fowler.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 145—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will resume her seat. The member for Lilley on a point of order.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order further to the member for Fowler's point of order. The member for Fowler did not have a chance to take her point of order before you ruled her point of order out of order. Under the standing orders, you have no power to rule a point of order out of order until you have heard it. Would you please hear her point of order?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Regular listeners to question time are very familiar with this hoary old chestnut. The fact is that whether or not a question and answer are relevant is of course easily assessed. I assessed the answer as relevant to the question. The minister is in order and the minister has the call.VK6Mrs VALE—The men and women of the Australian Navy are the pride of the nation. They have the full support of our government, and the other side should be absolutely ashamed of questioning their capacity.998215:23:009982Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. I refer to the announcement by the Prime Minister of initiatives to help drought stricken farmers and communities. Would the minister inform the House what assistance will be made available under the Work for the Dole scheme?9982Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Blair for his question. Even though the rains have been coming down today, quite clearly we are still in the midst of a drought and will be for a long time. We are seeing some very practical assistance as part of the government's $368 million worth of resources—a very comprehensive package. This is a practical measure for people who have good skills and have been working on farms but have unfortunately been put off. Just to bring the magnitude of this to the attention of the House: some 20,000 jobs have been lost, predominantly in the rural sector, in central, western and northern New South Wales alone over the last 12 months. By using the Work for the Dole initiative through Drought Force, the government is trying to ensure that the people with those skills remain in the towns so that we do not see the towns denuded of their presence and that of their families, leading to schoolteachers leaving and further economic deterioration in those towns as small businesses are impacted.Most of us can but wonder at the challenges facing many in our rural sector—husbands and wives on their own just trying to keep cattle alive. Whilst mateship is alive and well in Australia, people from the land who unfortunately find themselves out of work at the moment will be given the opportunity to remain on the land, to go back and work on these properties doing valuable work which will help both the environment and the economy up there, and retain those much needed skills. On top of that, this initiative will provide a training credit of $800 immediately when someone volunteers. I point out to the House that this is a totally voluntary program. It means that people with the skills will be assessed and, if they are capable, they will be able to go and work with local councils, with farming organisations or on private property, doing things such as mending fences, fixing irrigation systems et cetera so that when the rains do come Australians will be able to benefit from the productivity that the rural sector provides. I have no doubt that those people in regional and rural Australia who, unfortunately, are unemployed at this time will pitch in and lend a hand to the rural sector by providing extra activities on the farms, giving a bit of a helping hand to the poor bloke out there who is having trouble feeding his own family. It is that sort of mateship that Australians have relied on in times of adversity. By using the Work for the Dole program to underpin this, through our community work coordinators, I am sure that this will be a very important element of the government's overall comprehensive package to assist our drought stricken farmers.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I call the member for Werriwa. 00AN4Tollner, David, MPMr Tollner—Ah! The meat with eyes!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Solomon is warned!998315:26:009983Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mrs Vale. Minister, are you aware of the recent statement by the Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Mr Hugh White, that `If we want more patrol boats for border protection, almost anyone could operate them more cheaply than the Navy'? Minister, isn't it also true that the full cost of using Navy frigates to patrol our Indian Ocean territories is more than $1 million a day? Isn't that because our Navy ships and personnel are designed, trained and armed for war fighting, not border protection? Minister, why won't you support the establishment of an Australian coastguard?9983Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the honourable member for Werriwa for his question and, with respect to him, I think that is a dumb idea. We have a policy that has been shown to work. It does work. Over the last 12 months, the policy that this government put in place has been shown to work.998315:28:009983McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister advise the House how the excision of certain islands from the migration zone has assisted the government's overall strategy of deterring boat arrivals? What is the impact of the decision to obstruct the government's plan to expand these excised areas?9983Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Corangamite for his question. I notice the opposition is today feigning an interest in border protection, yet yesterday it was about sabotaging border protection arrangements. The fact of the matter is that excision of places such as Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Ashmore Reef impacts only upon those people who seek to enter Australia without authority—that is, illegally. It has no adverse impact on Australians. It in no way derogates from our sovereignty. In fact, there are very positive reasons why excision has worked.We now know that people are looking at trying to come to Australia by other means or other routes. They are looking at alternative possibilities, including travelling into the Pacific. We know now that those sorts of prospects have been spoken of by the smugglers. We know that the Pacific solution is one way that we can deal with those issues effectively if boats are coming to or likely to sink near excised islands. We know that, if people are able to access Australia rather than Christmas Island, where they would be processed under the Pacific solution, it means longer processing times and more costly appeals. It also means that we cannot use the arrangements that we have put in place where we use the same processing arrangements that the UNHCR uses, which have far more rigour associated with them.It is particularly interesting that, following the launch of their policy, the Labor Party no longer claim that excision in some way derogates from Australia's sovereignty. They have acknowledged that excision is appropriate for Christmas Island, yet they argue that excising other islands which might be used or inadvertently used in a way which undermines our policy is inappropriate and is in some way a derogation of our sovereignty. What we have here, very clearly, is the opposition again trying to walk both sides of the street. Labor are out there saying, `Our policies are about being tough on border protection,' but, when it comes to implementing the range of measures that are necessary for effective protection, Labor want to walk away from it. You only need to see the speeches by my colleague the honourable member for Batman to Rural Australians for Refugees to see how Labor is walking both sides of the street. Labor highlighted one aspect of the policy and then came into this place and said that it is interested in border protection. I have a very clear warning for the opposition: our measures have worked well but, if people go out there signalling to smugglers that Australia is now back in business—and that is what Labor is about—I can tell you who will have to wear the situation. If any boats trying to transit the Torres Strait are brought to the Australian mainland, I will not let you forget that, when the government wanted those measures, you walked away from them. You will not have the opportunity to avoid this issue. We will give you a chance to consider it again, because we will bring this legislation back again and again until we get it.998415:33:009984Grierson, Sharon, MPMs GRIERSON00AMPNewcastleALP00—My question is to the Attorney-General. Is the Attorney aware that the only two federal police officers serving the city of Newcastle and the Hunter region are being withdrawn from Newcastle? Given that Newcastle is a major Australian port which also houses important federal agencies such as the Australian Taxation Office, the Family Court and Centrelink, can the Attorney explain why the half a million residents of Newcastle and the Hunter should be left without any Australian Federal Police presence?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—How are you going to stop those boats coming in?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne!9984Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Newcastle for the question. The first answer is, no, I was not aware. Secondly, if it is true—and I am not in a position to confirm or deny it—it is an operational matter for the commissioner to determine. It is not a matter for political interference in relation to the operation of the police force. I will make inquiries of the Minister for Justice and Customs. If there is anything further to add, I will come back.998415:35:009984Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of the New South Wales government's plans to allow the CFMEU to appoint safety inspectors in the mining industry? Minister, what is the government's response to these plans?9984Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. I can assure the member for Gilmore that this government takes workplace safety issues very seriously indeed. Since 1996, there has been a 25 per cent reduction in workplace fatalities. Recently, the Commonwealth and the states agreed on specific targets for further reductions in workplace deaths and injuries because one workplace death is one too many.I should also point out to the House that unions do have an important role to promote workplace safety, but they should not be given a monopoly and they should not be given a privileged position in the occupational health and safety system. I regret to say that there are some unions which have used bogus safety issues to protect overmanning and to pursue extortionate wage claims. The CFMEU, for instance, has required the presence of safety supervisors for workers cleaning mirrors. It has required special labourers to supervise workers laying carpets. The CFMEU closed down the Murrin Murrin mine site because it alleged there were maggots in the canteen, even though workers had caught union activists red-handed contaminating the food supplies at that mine.Despite the CFMEU's frequent abuse of safety issues, I regret to inform the House that the New South Wales government currently has legislation before the parliament to give the CFMEU a statutory monopoly over the appointment of safety inspectors in the coalmining industry. Accepting that the New South Wales government would not want to put safety at risk, I respectfully ask the New South Wales government to reconsider whether giving a monopoly to this union above all unions is really going to improve safety in the mining industry. While I am on this topic, I also ask members opposite to consider how the union link consistently leads to poor policy outcomes as well as to the political problems that the Labor Party now faces. No less a person than the great Gough Whitlam lamented on the weekend saying, `I wouldn't get preselection these days—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, my point of order relates to standing order 145 and goes to relevance. Could you stop `Chopper Read' from diverting from the question?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—He has no respect for human life at all.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is warned!IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—Mr Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw that comment that was referred to the minister.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I in fact find myself at something of a disadvantage because, above the noise, I did not hear what the member for Lilley said in his latter comment. That was the reason that, recognising that he did not have a genuine point of order, I warned him. I am not conscious of the remark made by the member for Lilley.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr Randall—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to offensive language.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane has a very short memory and should recognise that, but for the tolerance of the chair, the constituents of Brisbane would be without a representative.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr Randall—Mr Speaker, the difference is that I apologised. Calling someone after a pathological killer is offensive, and I ask that the comment be withdrawn.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—If the remark made was offensive to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, I will of course require it to be withdrawn. I did not hear the remark and I, therefore, found myself at a disadvantage. I have taken the appropriate action under those circumstances by warning the member for Lilley.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, perhaps I could clear up the matter by pointing out that Chopper Read had no ears—and I have at least got plenty of ears.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—What about the 1,500 dead coalminers on the memorial wall, Tony?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hunter.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—You would be happy to double it, wouldn't you?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Is the member for Hunter aware of the fact that I have issued a warning to him?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—He is a disgrace.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—What about the 1,500 dead miners, Tony?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Hunter is named!8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Tony, 1,500 dead coalminers—and you wouldn't know anything about it.Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (3.42 p.m.)—I move:That the member for Hunter be suspended from the service of the House.15:47:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 78Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.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.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.Worth, P.M.62Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Organ, M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Hunter is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours.The member for Hunter then left the chamber.998610000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Corio.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I indicate to the Prime Minister—15:52:009986O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Corio, please, just extend some courtesy. I would indicate to the Prime Minister that I had already recognised the member for Corio. The member for Corio therefore has the call.WU5Mr GAVAN O'CONNOR—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I misunderstood what you were about to embark upon. My question is to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Minister, I refer to the advice yesterday that a new aviation security package is soon to be announced. Can the minister confirm that the tourism industry will not be slugged by another tax on travellers to pay for it, and will the minister also drop his proposal to increase the passenger movement charge to cover the cost of his tourism package? Minister, given that your Treasurer has never seen a tax that he has not loved, when will you—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Corio will come to his question.WU5Mr GAVAN O'CONNOR—Minister, can you give this House an assurance that the passenger movement charge will not be increased to cover the cost of your tourism package and that the tourism industry will not be slugged by another tax by the Treasurer on travellers to pay for the aviation security package?9987Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—The first point I would like to make is that terrorism is the enemy of tourism.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Yeah.DK6Mr HOCKEY—You think it is funny? The member for Hotham thinks it is funny.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the question, not to interjections.DK6Mr HOCKEY—Any threats to national security will have a direct impact on the Australian tourism industry, as an export—and now, I understand, tourism is our number one export—as the fourth largest industry in Australia and as an industry that employs more than half a million Australians. Other than that, it is not for me to speculate on budgetary measures.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker9987998715:55:009987Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Yesterday, I raised with you my concerns about security in the House of Representatives part of the building and the fact that, as members, we are not allowed to have Comcars wait for us while we take our baggage into the House on Sunday nights. We then have to get another car. I highlighted to you yesterday that the American Ambassador was allowed to have three of his security cars parked outside where the Comcars are normally standing. Could you please inform me what has resulted from my discussions with you yesterday about the concerns I raised with you?9987SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity to initially respond to the member for Franklin. As he would appreciate, and as I reported to him yesterday, I was meeting yesterday with the President and with the security management board to clear up some of these issues. My understanding is that, if the Comcar drivers could be criticised for anything, it would only be for being too efficient in their security. In fact, what they understood had been overstated. My understanding—and I will come back to the House if this is not correct—as a result of following up the matters raised by the member for Franklin, though I have not as yet prepared a detailed response to him, is that it is permissible for Comcar drivers to place members at the Reps door and wait for members to unload the car—and that may mean two trips—providing the Comcar driver remains with the car. I do not think the member for Franklin was seeking to have the Comcar driver remain there to necessarily take the member for Franklin or anyone else home, but it is permissible for the Comcar driver to remain while the car is unloaded. That does not mean that we expect members to act like packhorses in order to get everything into their offices. The Comcar driver can remain while that unloading occurs. I should add that that was, of course, consistent with the experience that the member for Franklin observed with the diplomatic vehicles.Personal Explanations998715:57:009987Mr GAVAN O'CONNOR,MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?WU5Mr GAVAN O'CONNOR,MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.WU5Mr GAVAN O'CONNOR,MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—During question time, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Representing the Minister for Defence stated that I used disparaging language in reference to Navy personnel. The minister, in her answer, referred to the Navy as the great little navy. It was that remark that I took exception to. I have the utmost respect for our Navy personnel.Miscellaneous998710000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I present a copy of a resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on 26 November 2002 relating to East Timorese asylum seekers. Miscellaneous9988998810000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—In accordance with the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the report of the Independent Auditor, dated 10 December 2002, on results of a performance audit of contract management arrangements within the Australian National Audit Office.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents9988998810000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 20 of 2002-03 entitled Performance audit—Employee entitlements support schemes—Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents9988Mr McGAURAN (Gippsland—Deputy Leader of the House) (3.59 p.m.)—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. I move:That the House take note of the following papers:Export Market Development Grants.National Road Transport Commission.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance9988998810000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Werriwa proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The need for an effective border security strategy, including an Australian coastguard.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:59:009988Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—In question time today, we saw another embarrassing performance by the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. She is embarrassing to the government, she is embarrassing to the parliament and she is embarrassing to the nation. She is a minister with defence responsibilities who can barely answer a question at the dispatch box. She can barely answer a question and can barely give any sort of credible defence of government policy, and now she is a minister who has fled from the chamber rather than face an important debate about border protection and national security. She is unfit for the job; she is incapable of defending this nation. Mrs Vale may well be a very nice lady—I am sure of that—but, quite frankly, I would not want her defending my street let alone defending our country. I would not want her involved in the protection of our borders or our national security. She is not up to the job. She may be another favourite of the Prime Minister but she is not a favourite of the Australian people, who are looking for a competent minister who is across the brief and able to defend our borders and secure our nation.The truth is that Australia needs a coastguard. More than ever, we need a cop on the beat. We need an effective maritime policing capacity. In one respect, it is amazing that Australia does not already have a coastguard. We are the world's largest island—the world's only island continent—with 37,000 kilometres of coastline. We have all that coastline but no coastguard. It is a major deficiency in our border protection strategy and a major deficiency in the nation's security. It is even worse than that: not only do we not have a coastguard but our nearest neighbour to the north, Indonesia—the world's largest archipelago—does not have a coastguard either. It is no wonder that our part of the world is so vulnerable to the drug runners, the gun smugglers and the pirate fishermen; and we are vulnerable to people-smuggling over the medium term.It also needs to be said that the coastguard is an effective part of a strategy against terrorism. There is no doubt that terrorists look to nations with porous borders. Terrorists are attracted to nations that do not guard their coasts; they are attracted to nations with porous borders. We need a coastguard on so many fronts. We need the cop on the beat to deter the gun runners, to deter the drug smugglers, to combat the pirate fishermen, to fight the terrorists and to deter the people smugglers over the medium to longer term. This is an important part of Australia's national security strategy. The truth is that the Howard government has gone soft on border protection because it has the wrong border protection strategy. You cannot be strong and effective on border protection unless you have the right strategy. The government has a strategy that, quite frankly, is uncoordinated and unsustainable. It is unsustainable on the basis of cost. The government's strategy is to have Navy frigates patrolling our Indian Ocean territories and waterways at a cost of $1 million a day. So it would take just two frigates operating for 300 days in a year to meet the full cost of Labor's comprehensive national coastguard network. The government's strategy is unsustainable. The government's strategy is ineffective. The government has gone soft on border protection because it has the wrong strategy. We need a coastguard to make up for the current arrangements, which are hopelessly inadequate. They are inadequate on the basis of cost. How can anyone defend a strategy that has Navy frigates acting as patrol boats at a cost of $1 million a day? It is cost ineffective. It is one of the most inefficient things you can do with our valuable Navy resources.The Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence was in here today demeaning the Navy by saying it is little. In her world, it must be little and very expensive. She has the frigates out there at $1 million a day. It is also true to say that the current strategy is a poor use of operational resources. We have Navy personnel who have to jump 10 metres into the water to get asylum seekers out of the water. These boats have not been built for this purpose. Morale is falling. There is no doubt about that. The minister can deny it and talk about what is happening in the Gulf, but she should have a talk to the sailors who are out there on the frigates patrolling the Australian coast about the drop in morale. They have been trained for a war-fighting operation and not to act on border protection patrol boats. Morale is falling, and we are losing the skills of a war-fighting Navy. If you take our Navy and dedicate it to the wrong purpose—a purpose for which our sailors have never been trained—you will lose expertise, you will lose skills and you will lose morale. The minister can talk about an operation up in the Gulf, but the truth is that in our own backyard morale and skills are falling.The other problem we have is that the Coastwatch arrangement is a dog's breakfast. It is totally uncoordinated and unfocused; it is an absolute dog's breakfast. The truth is that we can do much better, and that is the purpose of Labor's positive solution of establishing an Australian coastguard. Why do we need the coastguard? We need the coastguard because of the findings of the Australian Illicit Drug Report. They are that Customs seizures amount to just one per cent of the heroin required to satisfy the Australian market—that is, 99 per cent of heroin crosses our borders undetected. If you had a concern about safety on our streets or about heroin peddlers in our suburbs, you would have an Australian coastguard to defend our borders and to stop the rush of heroin into this country. We need a coastguard also because of the problem of illegal hand guns. It is estimated that there are 100,000 illegal hand guns circulating in Australia, and every one of them is imported illegally.84THaase, Barry, MPK26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—The last time Australian Customs apprehended a gun runner crossing our coastline—and it was in the electorate of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, who is making a bit of noise; he might remember the last time Australian Customs apprehended a drug runner crossing our coastline—was four years ago, in 1998, in the Kimberleys. So Customs have not been effective.84THaase, Barry, MPMr Haase—That's right.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—He says, `That's right.' He is proud of the achievement of Customs in not having apprehended a gun runner since doing so up in the Kimberleys in 1998. That is another reason we need a coastguard. The government boasts of an agreement made last Friday at COAG to ban about 20 per cent of the hand guns in Australia. Bigger and better results would be achieved by establishing a coastguard. In the calender year 2001, Customs seized a grand total of 232 illegal hand guns. That is a bad performance. If it were not so serious, it would be a joke. They seized a grand total of 232 hand guns. Establishing an Australian coastguard could make our streets and suburbs safer, keep the guns off our streets and achieve a big result for community security. So too for the problem of pirate fishermen. If we want to do something about the pirate fishermen, we need effective border protection. We need a cop on the beat. We need an Australian coastguard. Of course, Labor have a solution. Unlike the government, we are not talking about these things; we are putting forward constructive policy solutions. There are four aspects to our national coastguard network. The first of those is the new hardware. Labor will commission three new purpose-built ships, built in Australia, generating Australian jobs and adding to our important shipbuilding industry. This fleet of three 80-metre ships, with helicopters, fills a critical capability gap. The truth is that, under the current flawed strategy, the Navy patrol boats are too small to protect our Indian Ocean territories, including Christmas Island, yet the Navy frigates are too expensive at $1 million a day to do the job efficiently. We need the coastguard fleet that a Crean Labor government will commission after the next election. The fleet will be headquartered at Darwin, with boats stationed at Cairns and Broome. There will be no impact on the defence budget; Navy resources will be unaffected. This is a win-win scenario: new hardware, a new coastguard fleet to undertake all these important border protection functions.The second aspect of our coastguard network is the new personnel—250 new staff, as part of a coastguard staff entitlement of 2,000. The staff on the new boats are, of course, important, but the coastguard staff will also be posted on existing Navy and Customs patrol boats to perform surveillance and interdiction duties and also the vital maritime policing functions.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—To do the job properly.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—That is right: to do the job properly, as should have been happening for years. Our new coastguard personnel will be trained using state-of-the-art technology at the Australian Maritime College at Launceston in the electorate of Bass. The third aspect of our strategy is the coastguard volunteers. John Howard says that he wants Australians to be alert to the threat of terrorism. Labor says that Australians should be alert but they should also have the opportunity and capacity to join a voluntary organisation to help make Australia safer. As a nation, generally, we do not look after our volunteers well enough. Labor's coastguard volunteers will change this pattern of neglect. We need a huge national effort to patrol and protect our borders. Labor will bring together the two existing organisations, the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol and the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association, to form a new coastguard volunteer network, a vast network of commercial and recreational vessels forming perhaps Australia's largest voluntary effort in the security and defence of our nation.And the potential is there. This is the potential the Howard government has totally neglected. It has given no recognition or encouragement to the coastguard volunteers. In Australia, we have 12,000 commercial vessels. We have 500,000 registered recreational boats. They should be the eyes and ears of a nation concerned about terrorism, the eyes and ears of a nation concerned about border protection and the eyes and ears of the world's largest island continent, with 37,000 kilometres of coast. They should offer the surveillance, the training and all the services that are needed to make our nation safe. Labor's policy will provide training and badging for the coastguard vessels and the volunteers, plus financial incentives—discounts on boat registration for all of the volunteers and also communication support in areas that are targeted by our coastguard strategy. The provision of $125 million is an investment in our volunteers over four years. It is the recognition and encouragement at long last that they truly deserve. The fourth and final aspect of our national coastguard network is the new intelligence capacity. Good intelligence is the key driver of effective border protection. Currently, the Coastwatch effort is unable to direct the surveillance effort. It is contracted in by other agencies, so it cannot actually control the surveillance strategy. Labor's policy brings the coordination together and also provides an additional $30 million investment in fixed seabed array technology—that is, a seabed sonar system to increase the reach of our surveillance and national intelligence effort.So this is a comprehensive national network of coastguard services—the new ships, the new personnel, the thousands of volunteers and the new intelligence capacity—all provided in a cost-effective way and far more effective than anything that has been achieved by the Howard government. We need to secure our nation, and it is not only Labor saying these things. Our policy has been endorsed by the people who know. The Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol has said that it `welcomes the proposal of a single federal agency that would coordinate the safety and protection of our coastline'. It went on to say:The concept of a national coast guard manned by well trained professionals and supported by equally well trained volunteers works very well in many countries overseas, most notable the United States of America.And then there is the Australia Defence Association. What did they have to say about our coastguard policy? They said:The government has again over-reacted to the Opposition's policy with an inflammatory and generally superficial response that simply reflects the bureaucratic interest groups. They would do better to hijack—and adopt—Labor's proposal.Here is the Prime Minister talking about interest groups, but the truth is that when it comes to interest groups he is paralysed by the bureaucracy, paralysed by the sectional interest groups and unable to give this nation the border protection, the coastguard services that it truly needs. We have the support of the Australia Defence Association. It is a great shame that the assistant Minister for Defence is not even in the chamber to hear these ringing endorsements of Labor's coastguard policy. She is too scared to give an answer, she is too scared to engage in a debate, she truly has lost the plot and she gives the Australian people no confidence or security that she is up to the important task of acting as one of our defence ministers at this critical time in Australia's history. And what does Hugh White, one the pre-eminent defence and intelligence experts in Australia, have to say about the coastguard issue? He says:If we want more patrol boats—for border protection—... almost anyone could operate them more cheaply than the Navy.That is another ringing endorsement of Labor's cost-effective, efficient strategy. We can do a lot better than Minister Danna Vale, we can do a lot better than a government that is paralysed by bureaucratic interests and sectional considerations, a government that has ignored the potential need for an Australian coastguard. It is one thing to have a minister who is regarded as a nice person, but niceness is not going to help Australia in the war against terror. Niceness is not going to help Australians to feel more secure, it is not going to get the drugs off our streets and it is not going to get the illegal guns out of our communities. Having a nice minister—a little favourite that the Prime Minister can pat on the head; the new Jackie Kelly of the Australian parliament—is hopelessly inadequate for the Australian people at this critical time. We need good policy. The world's largest island continent with the world's largest coastline needs a coastguard. That is the bottom line: we need a coastguard. The government should be sensible enough to put the public interest first and adopt our policy right now.16:14:009991Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—Character assassination is no substitute for policy. The proposition from the member for Werriwa is a complete throwback to propositions that have already been rejected by the Australian people. I believe the proposition before the House today is a sign to the people of Australia that the Australian Labor Party are still ignoring them. Over 12 months ago, the people of Australia had a number of things to contend with in the 2001 federal election and one of them was Labor's proposition for a coastguard. It was roundly defeated. The Australian Labor Party need to understand that that defeat, that rejection of that policy, means that they should move on, cut their losses and look for something else. But, no, the Australian Labor Party are still ignoring the people of Australia. The proposition underscores the Australian Labor Party's complete desperation. The proposition also signals to smugglers that Australia would be back in business as far as they are concerned if the Australian Labor Party were ever to form government again. The people smugglers and drug smugglers would enjoy the day that the Australian Labor Party were re-elected to government. This proposition from the member for Werriwa also ignores the public debate that has occurred since the last election, which continues to roundly reject this proposition for a coastguard. The proposition also weakens the standing of the Royal Australian Navy, an organisation whose men and women are charged with the important task of protecting the seas around this nation. This proposition, as the Minister for Veterans Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence rightly said during question time, also says that we will substitute three small patrol boats for the 15 boats which are currently employed in the tasks that the member for Werriwa says are not being done properly. This is not about coastguard; this is about leader guard—although, if I were the member for Hotham, I would be greatly concerned if the member for Werriwa mounted a defence of my leadership. People in my own electorate are wondering why the Australian Labor Party continue to ignore, after being told time and time again, the fact that this proposition for a coastguard simply does not stack up; that it will take away important resources from the Royal Australian Navy and it will take away the important task that the Royal Australian Navy performs. People cannot understand why the Labor Party do not get on with the business of backing the government's efforts with regard to border protection.The opposition's continual insistence on bringing back a coastguard policy for border control is simply recycling ideas that have been rejected. They still do not understand that effective border protection strategies are already in place at this time. The rest of Australia has moved on, but the Labor Party continue to hold on to what was in their minds prior to the last election. They do not realise that they lost and that they need to move on in every possible way, including policy development. It is almost one year since we were promised a 1,000-day-long reform—a reform which would have matured after the next election is due. People in Australia will have to wait for two elections before they see a reformed Labor Party. At the end of the day, Labor still have a long way to go in developing workable policies to deal with unauthorised arrivals. The market has made its choice, but the Labor Party ignore what the market has had to say. In contrast with these untested policy experiments that are proposed by Labor, the Howard government's strategies are working. We have in place a comprehensive, coordinated strategy dealing with border protection, yet the opposition want to impose another layer of bureaucracy—something else to trip up everybody on the high seas. They want to change boats midstream. The proof that the Howard government's strategies are working is that there have been no boat arrivals on the Australian mainland since August 2001 and no boat arrivals in any Australian territory since 9 December 2001, which sounds awfully like a year ago yesterday. The Howard government have a system which is comprehensive and is working.The mantra of `coastguard' is something that the Labor Party seem to shout every time they need a lifeline or a circuit-breaker in contemporary political debate. They feel themselves to be sinking into irrelevance in public debate. The Labor Party are divided on all these issues. The member for Fremantle has made well known her position on Labor Party policy and policy development on the front bench. She cannot even guarantee that she will contest the next election as a Labor candidate unless other policy changes are made at the ALP conference next year. The member for Werriwa is trying very hard to defend the constant exposure that his leader has had on this particular issue. His leader is being buffeted by waves of discontent within his party, muttering about what the Labor Party stands for. The `Friends of the ABC' faction is alive and well—that is, the `Anyone but Crean' faction. In raising this proposition today, the member for Werriwa is quite deliberately weakening his leader. The effort to combat the people-smuggling trade is ongoing. It draws on the combined resources of a number of different agencies, including my department—the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs—the law enforcement community, the intelligence community and the defence community. The government's approach comprises three main elements. It is worth repeating them for the public record. The first is the prevention of the problem by minimising the outflows from countries of origin and the secondary outflows from countries of first asylum. The second is working with other countries to disrupt people smugglers and to intercept their clients en route to their intended destination, while also ensuring that people in need of refugee protection are identified and assisted as early as possible. The third is the development of appropriate reception arrangements for unauthorised arrivals who reach Australia, focusing on the early assessment of the refugee status of each person and the prompt removal of those who are not refugees or who are refugees but who cannot access effective protection elsewhere. This is working. This program, this coordinated effort by the government, is working in the area of border protection and does not need the sort of interruption to the process that the Labor Party is proposing. It does not need the sort of signal that is being sent to people smugglers and smugglers of other items which come to Australia—that is, that if the Labor Party were elected again to the government benches, they would be back in business and big time.In September last year, the Howard government introduced significant legislative changes to border control and the management of unauthorised boat arrivals. I need to revisit all that happened in the lead-up to the last election, because it seems to have escaped those opposite. The government has also enacted legislation to limit grounds for the judicial review of visa related matters in Australian courts. This measure addresses the problem of unsuccessful asylum seekers who are using court processes as a means to deter their removal.Customs officers already have the powers that they need to do the job. They can board ships, question, arrest and carry firearms. They can pursue and stop ships on the open seas and they can seize vessels. Customs officers and the Australian Customs Service are well aware of the range of measures they have at their disposal and are well aware of their own efforts and the success of their efforts. Labor are completely ignoring these efforts and the experience of officers on the ground today doing that important job and gaining real yards in the area of border protection. This is another uncosted policy. The Australian Labor Party in opposition will, of course, continue to promise a range of measures that, at the end of the day, they know they will never have to implement—measures that would be financially irresponsible if for some reason they were ever re-elected to the treasury bench. This coastguard would be more costly. It is an irresponsible, wasteful and reckless proposal. It would create a new bureaucracy with all the overhead costs that that entails. The proposal to transfer patrol boats from Defence and vessels from Customs is short-sighted and dangerous to national security. Defence needs to retain all of its patrol boats, which are critical for its training and development regime. Even more stupidly, under the Australian Labor Party proposal Defence and Customs would in fact need to purchase new vessels to pick up on the non-Coastwatch work that their vessels would be doing. This is a stupid and reckless proposal and it concerns me that after all of the years of debate on this matter, after all of the opportunities the people of Australia have had to judge this and after the views of so many other people involved in the Australian community who comment on these sorts of matters on a daily basis, the Australian Labor Party still do not get it. They still do not get the fact that, after September last year, when the debate in Australia homed in particularly on these issues, the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, put up a proposition for a coastguard as an alternative measure for border protection to deal with the government's already effective strategy, which was introduced as a result of all of the things that were happening to Australia and which was endorsed by the people of Australia. It is interesting that the member for Hotham, the member for Werriwa and several others—and there were only a few, and in fact it was interesting to watch so many members opposite leave when the member for Werriwa started speaking and to note that there is not a universal view on the other side—are still keeping alive this ridiculous proposition. It is interesting to note that Mike Carlton on Sydney radio 2UE on 27 November interviewed the Leader of the Opposition. I will quote some of the highlights from that particular interview, where Carlton understood very well the absolute lack of support in the Australian community for this. The transcript is as follows: CREAN: I'm talking about the Indian Ocean, the blue water activity—he was talking about patrol boats and the potential for a coastguard. It continues:CARLTON: We have patrol boats in the Indian Ocean. Where'd you get that idea?CREAN: Um, these—what they do is to send the frigates out into the deep water operations and they cost a million dollars a day, Mike. A million a day.CARLTON: We have ... patrol boats all over our Coastguard. I don't know where you got this idea that they can't operate in deep water? That's just nuts.It goes on:CARLTON: Would you ... go down to the Southern Ocean in an 80-metre vessel in the height of winter?CREAN: All the advice that we've had is that they can.I tell you what: they would want to have a good union because it is going to be pretty cold down there in the Southern Ocean in the middle of winter. This is the sort of nonsense proposal the Australian Labor Party are endorsing in this proposition today. It continues:CARLTON: Hmm. I can't see it working, I've got to tell you but I admire you, at least you've got a policy on something—so Carlton recognises that the Australian Labor Party do not have many policies, but at least they have a policy on something—but it just seems to be utterly wasteful duplication of the maritime and military skills we have.If Mike Carlton could give better advice, I am waiting to hear it. He gave great advice to the Leader of the Opposition last week and Simon Crean still does not get it. After the interview, Carlton summed it all up. He said:Thanks a lot. Simon Crean, the Leader of the Opposition. Well look, it's a nice feel-good idea, a Coastguard to patrol our seas and oceans, cop on the beat—he obviously likes that phrase—but it's half-cocked, half-baked.Opposition members interjecting—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—They are all saying, `Hear, hear!' Carlton continued:Where do you get the crews? They don't come overnight. The Navy is at full stretch recruiting and keeping its own people. To use the Navy phrase you have to raise 'em, train 'em and sustain 'em—that doesn't happen overnight. It's— you know. The patrol boats themselves, 80 metres—yes, good-sized ships, twice the size of the patrol boats we've got—but Simon Crean thinks our existing patrol boats can't go into blue waters, that's rubbish. Absolute rubbish. They're there all the time, that's all they do. Whether these 80-metre Coastguard vessels he's talking about could handle the Southern Ocean in winter, I doubt very much. It's tough enough for the bigger frigates to do that. Well, what sort of armament would they have? A gun up the front, he said. Well he didn't know much about that, either.The proposition put by Mike Carlton really says it all. Just last week the Leader of the Opposition was given absolute sound advice by a well-established, highly credentialled and highly experienced media commentator. Mike Carlton is someone with experience in other parts of the world as well as here in Australia, someone who calls a spade a spade, and without any doubt he said that Emperor Crean was completely naked on the question of a coastguard. Yet today we have the member for Werriwa coming in here in support of his leader—I do not think so. At the end of the day, this proposition has been put forward by the member for Werriwa to add further embarrassment to the member for Hotham. This is all about the Australian Labor Party, without any doubt and in a blatant way, promising everything that sounds good. This is `a feel-good proposition', as Mike Carlton said last week—a nice sounding, feel-good proposition. But Labor are showing the people of Australia, the Navy, the people involved in the Customs Service, the people involved in the everyday hard work of proving the great result that we have had over the past 12 months—and they are also showing the people-smugglers—that if they were elected back to the treasury bench there would be confusion, not coordination, and bureaucracy aplenty but not any depth to the services provided. Their policy is soft on sovereignty, on border control and on costing. The Labor Party proposition is also showing that they are somewhat soft in the head because, after some 15 or 16 months of public debate on the proposition of a coastguard, the Australian Labor Party still have not got the message. This proposition today, initiated by the member for Werriwa, is rejected outright by the government because it does not work. The Australian Labor Party need to wake up to the fact that that is the case. I look forward to them spending the Christmas period properly understanding the reality that they should be confronting, and that is that they have lost three elections on the run, and the people of Australia have spoken. (Time expired)16:29:009995Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I think we have heard just about everything in this place now. We have had the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs stand up here and talk about defence matters and matters to do with national security. It is like a scene from a movie. We looked for the Minister for Defence and we looked for the assistant minister for defence, but who did we get? We got the minister for citizenship. We may as well have got the minister for child care or the minister for anything else. We wanted a serious debate with the government in relation to this policy. The minister got up here and quoted Mike Carlton. Who is Mike Carlton? Is he an expert on defence matters? Is he an expert on national security? Is he an ex military officer? Is he anyone who has any experience in dealing with matters to do with national security? The answer to those questions is no.The member for Werriwa, who has responsibility for this in the shadow ministry, quoted the Australia Defence Association, who have endorsed Labor's policy. He quoted the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, who have supported Labor's policy. He quoted the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, who have also endorsed Labor's policy. The minister for citizenship came in here, quoted Mike Carlton, and said that Mike Carlton is against Labor's policy and therefore it is not a good thing. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, that on our side—on the side of this good, decent public policy—we have all the people who know what they are talking about. On the government side we have a minister who does not have portfolio responsibility for this area. He came in here and read a speech from a couple of years ago that he pulled out of a dusty old drawer in his office, and he read it off without any proper analysis of what Labor's policy has to offer.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—And then he scampers off!84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I have just been advised that he is scampering off. I wish he would stay because he might learn a thing or two. In public life the test of how serious you are about something is the resources you are prepared to commit to it. Under our policy—our fully costed policy—we have allocated $612½ million over four years to underscore Labor's commitment to border protection. It is all well and good for people in public life to stand up and say, `I'm for education', `I'm for defence' or `I'm for health', but the real test is how much you are prepared to put behind that commitment. The Labor Party have put more than $600 million behind our commitment. We are serious about this policy, we are serious about border protection and we are serious about it for a lot of good reasons. When you talk about maritime policing, you are talking about things that affect people's lives. You are talking about people smugglers, gun runners, drug smugglers and illegal fishing, and you are also talking about terrorists. These things are all very real risks to Australians. These are things that affect people's lives, and that is why we are concerned about them. That is why we have put in place this comprehensive policy to deal seriously with this important security matter. The one thing to never lose sight of when you talk about border protection is that it is not about false nationalism, it is not about jingoism and it is not about some of the stuff the hooray henrys on the other side go on about. It is about people's lives. On this side we are concerned about the impact of illegal importation of hand guns, illegal fishing, people smugglers and other illegal activity that takes place right now without any fear on the part of those responsible that they will be caught and brought to account for their actions. Right now maritime policing is a very vague concept. Who is involved, who is responsible and who has enforcement powers are very grey areas. We are about tightening that up and giving people real authority and the real resources they need to tackle this important issue.The member for Werriwa—the shadow minister for community security, who has carriage of this for us—made a few important remarks in relation to the appropriateness of the resources the government are putting towards this task. We are about making sure that the government resources put towards border protection meet the task. Right now inappropriate government resources are being put towards this task, and it is just not working. It is not just the Labor Party who says it is not working: people in the defence community, people involved in national security and people involved in the Volunteer Coast Guard all accept that the current arrangements are not sustainable. They are not working effectively and they come at an extremely high cost to government. The reason is simple: they are using the wrong gear for the job. It is as simple as that. This has a substantial impact on the personnel involved. These people signed up to the Royal Australian Navy with the understanding that the Royal Australian Navy was used for war fighting in Australia and had a primary defence role. That is what those brave sailors understood when they signed up to be part of the Royal Australian Navy. Now they are performing a range of tasks which have nothing to do with what they have been trained to do or the functions they have set out to discharge.We are about letting the Royal Australian Navy get on with the business of defence and putting in place a proper Australian coastguard to deal with issues of maritime policing. We understand that when you have a problem you need to think seriously about the resources you need to bring to dealing with that problem. The government seems absolutely incapable of understanding that when you talk about border protection you are not talking about defence. When you speak to people involved in this area, one thing comes through loud and clear: people are not happy about the existing arrangements, in which the Royal Australian Navy is used for this function. We are serious about letting the Royal Australian Navy get on with defence because we think the defence of Australia is an important priority and should not be diminished in any way by involving the Royal Australian Navy in other matters. What could be more important than defence? What could be more important than letting those sailors and that expert staff deal with matters to do with the defence of our country? We say: let those people do that work, and put in place a professional maritime police force to act as an Australian coastguard to make sure that matters to do with border protection are taken seriously and dealt with effectively.I want to address the volunteer component in the time I have left in this debate. This is about saying to citizens in Australia that we understand they are serious about border protection and that we are too. We are going to make it possible for those citizens who are concerned about border protection to play an active role in enforcing border protection in our country. This is not a policy which has been arrived at without talking to people. The Labor Party has spoken to the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, the government agencies involved and other groups which are involved in the volunteer coastguard community. What people have said to us very clearly—and it was mentioned in the endorsements which were read out by the member for Werriwa—is that they all support the idea of having a properly resourced Australian coastguard. Everyone else, except for the government, can see that if you have 37,000 kilometres of coastline you need a coastguard. It comes as no surprise to anyone that with 37,000 kilometres of coastline we are detecting only about one per cent of the illegal drugs that come into this country. That affects our communities, the places where we live. This is why so many people in Australia will be keen to participate in a volunteer border protection effort. We are serious about those people who want to volunteer to be a part of the border protection effort. To underscore how seriously we take their volunteerism, we are going to resource it. There are a few important things which make up that support. We are going to sit down with the people who are involved in those volunteer coastguard agencies—the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol and the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard—and we are going to ask them to develop the charter for the new coastguard volunteer organisation. We are going to ask people who are involved in recreational fishing and tourism around the coastline, and also commercial fishermen, to participate in the coastguard volunteer patrol movement. We are going to ask those people to give us the intelligence which they have in relation to finding out where the ships are and where there is illegal activity. We are going to make it possible for those people to contribute to the volunteer effort and the professional effort involved in making sure that we have effective border protection in our country.We are going to make sure that those people do that not just based on our saying: `You do this and that's all well and good, but we're not going to resource it properly.' What we are going to do is give those people a financial incentive as well for participating in our program. That is going to be contributed to them through discounted boat registration and also through assisting those people with new types of communications technology which will make their task easier. We are serious about border protection on this side of the House. We stand with the Australian Defence Association, the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard and every other thinking person in Australia who understands that with 37,000 kilometres of coastline Australia needs an Australian coastguard. (Time expired)16:39:009997Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs10—What do we have this time from the member for Werriwa? The hoary chestnut that is the coastguard. Let me see, how long has the idea of the coastguard been around? Way before your time, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, and way before my time. For 50 years the idea of a coastguard has come and gone. It has gone for a very good reason: it does not actually hold water. The idea itself sinks. It was raised originally in the 1950s, believe it or not. A Liberal government in the 1950s said, `Maybe we should have a look at a coastguard.' They had a look at the coastguard and they said at the end of it, `We don't need it.' We did not need it in the 1950s and we do not need it now. What Labor need, of course, is a policy. Desperate for a policy—any policy—they trawled through all the old ideas they could find and then, with sudden inspiration, the member for Werriwa looked around and said, `I've got one: it's a coastguard. Boy, we have got it. Let's show the Australian public that we are as good as anybody else and we can come up with a coastguard.'Unfortunately, there are more than a few problems with the idea. First of all, to exclude the way that it was brought up as an old idea, what about duplication? This is what all the experts who have looked at it have said: `We have a Navy and we have Coastwatch. We do not need duplication of services. We do not need duplication of personnel, we do not need duplication of administration and we do not need to wear the extra cost to achieve nothing more.' What we have now is an extremely good set-up. For the benefit of the member for Werriwa and for Junior here, whose seat I do not remember, we will go through what we— 849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—He didn't call you `Senior', did he.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I would be glad to be called `Senior'.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The parliamentary secretary will refer to members by their titles.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, you could refresh my memory as to the title of the young man at the table.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—He is the honourable member for McMillan.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—For the information of the member for McMillan, we have a Customs—84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—You don't hear me calling you an old woman.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I have no objection if you want to call me an old woman.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The parliamentary secretary will ignore the interjections and the honourable member for McMillan will cease interjecting.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I am very happy to go with the title of `old woman' if that is what you wish to call me. That is about the level of sophistication of the opposition, to refer to people as `old women'. I can wear that if that is what you want to call me. For your information, member for McMillan, we have a Customs National Marine Unit which operates a fleet of eight 35-metre Bay class vessels, capable of providing up to 2,400 sea days per year. In 2001-02, officers boarded more than 240 vessels. Customs Coastwatch has a fleet of 15 aircraft and two helicopters. It operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Coastwatch currently has access to the intelligence of the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Both the National Marine Unit and Customs Coastwatch work with our Navy, Air Force and Army on two programs. Are you listening, member for McMillan? You might actually learn something here. Those two programs are Operation Relex, a program to detect, intercept and deter vessels carrying unauthorised arrivals, and Operation Cranberry, a program of air, sea and land surveillance to detect illegal activities such as smuggling and fishing.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—This is supposed to be a debating chamber, not a reading class.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Mr Deputy Speaker, can I comment that, while the member for McMillan was making his speech, I did not make one interjection.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—Everyone else did.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I believe I made one short interjection during the member for Werriwa's speech. Mr Deputy Speaker, could I ask that you enforce the same courtesy from the opposition as we gave to them. It would really assist. Let us have a look at this idea that the member for Werriwa has come up with. Do you know what it reminded me of? Tommy the tugboat! Instead of Tommy the tugboat, what have we got? We have Collie the coastguard, with its flotilla of little volunteer rowboats, rowing around the Pacific, rowing around the Indian Ocean, saying, `Oh, what can we see out here from our little fishing boats?' This is your idea of Australian security. This is your idea, instead of using the sophisticated system we already have—the Navy, Coastwatch and all that goes with it, and the Customs services and all the vessels. It is your idea to add this third ridiculous service, which is Collie the coastguard and its flotilla of little volunteers. Is that really what you think Australia's defence needs? Can I also remind the member for Werriwa, if you are talking about Australia, Australia's—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—You really should dry out, Chris.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Could I ask the Deputy Speaker what the member for Werriwa meant when he said I should dry out?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! It would assist the chair if the honourable member for Werriwa would withdraw that remark.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—The member for Hindmarsh is slurring her words, but I am happy to withdraw it. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member should withdraw without any additions.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I withdraw.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Thank you to the member for Werriwa for his gracious withdrawal. It is extremely gracious of you after suggesting that I was standing at the dispatch box, having drunk too much. It was a delightful withdrawal from the member for Werriwa. Can I go back to the whole question of this MPI today, which is the need for an effective border security strategy. Let us have a look at what happened between 1989 and 2001. There were 13,400 people who arrived in Australia between 1989 and 2001. In 2000-01, there were 4,137 boat arrivals. But, under coalition policy, there have been no boat arrivals on the Australian mainland since September 2001.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—Right; that's a policy that works.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—This is the coalition's policy, and it works. This is the Pacific strategy. This is the strategy that this rabble of an opposition wants to get rid of. This is the strategy that works, and what does the opposition say? `Let's get rid of the Pacific strategy. Instead, we'll bring in Collie the coastguard and the flotilla of little volunteer boats.' 849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—That's Attila the Hun.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Throwing out the Pacific strategy, what will we have instead? We will encourage the boat people, the people smugglers to bring people into Australia—849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—You'll have to correct this Hansard.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Can I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, the personal abuse that is coming from the other side is an example of what a low rabble that side is.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—An absolute disgrace!CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Yes.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—At least we're sober.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Werriwa said, `At least we're sober,' implying, I think, that I am not sober. Could I ask him to withdraw?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Werriwa will withdraw—formally, please.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I'm not far wrong, but I withdraw.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I have warned the honourable member not to have additions.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I withdraw.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Can I say, seriously, that I take increasing offence to that. The implication there is typical of the nasty, mean-minded mouth that is the opposition in this place. It is a rabble that cannot come up with a policy; a rabble that cannot come up with an idea; a rabble that, to come up with a policy, has to go back to a 1950s idea from the Liberal government—indeed, a hopeless opposition. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Miscellaneous999916:50:009999Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—by leave—I move:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Crimes Legislation Amendment (People Smuggling, Firearms Trafficking and Other Measures) Bill 2002Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002Plant Breeder's Rights Amendment Bill 2002Question agreed to.Bills9999Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Excise Laws Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002Health Care (Appropriation) Amendment Bill 2002Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Bill 2002Medical Indemnity Agreement (Financial Assistance—Binding Commonwealth Obligations) Bill 2002Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2002Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002Egg Industry Service Provision (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2002Egg Industry Service Provision Bill 2002New Business Tax System (Consolidation and Other Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2002New Business Tax System (Franking Deficit Tax) Amendment Bill 2002Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2002Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2002Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Amendment Bill 2002Bills10000R152510000Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments disagreed to by the House.Bills10000R164810000Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be considered forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 8), omit “ACCC may”, substitute “ACA must”.(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item, substitute:2 Section 348Omit “may”, substitute “must”.(3) Schedule 1, items 3 and 4, page 3 (lines 12 to 15), omit the items, substitute:3 Subsection 349(2)Omit “may”, substitute “must”.4 Subsection 349(2)After “specified” (first occurring), insert “declared”.4A At the end of subsection 349(2)Add:Note: Declared carriage service is defined by section 350A.(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 4, insert:4B After section 350Insert:350A Declared carriage services (1) The ACCC may, by written instrument, declare that a specified carriage service is a declared carriage service for the purposes of this Part. (2) The declaration has effect accordingly. (3) In deciding whether to make a declaration under this section, the ACCC must have regard to whether the declaration will promote the long-term interests of end-users of: (a) carriage services; or (b) services supplied by means of carriage services. (4) The ACCC may have regard to any other matters that it thinks are relevant. (5) For the purposes of this section, the question whether a particular thing promotes the long-term interests of end-users of: (a) carriage services; or (b) services supplied by means of carriage services;is to be determined in the same manner in which that question is determined for the purposes of Part XIC of the Trade Practices Act 1974.Note: See section 152AB of the Trade Practices Act 1974.(5) Schedule 1, items 5 to 13, page 3 (line 16) to page 7 (line 16), omit the items, substitute:5 At the end of section 352Add: (4) Before making a declaration under this section, the ACA must consult the ACCC.6 Transitional—sections 349 and 350A of the Telecommunications Act 1997(1) This item applies if: (a) a carriage service was the subject of a determination under subsection 349(2) of the Telecommunications Act 1997; and (b) the determination was in force immediately before the commencement of this item. (2) The Telecommunications Act 1997 has effect, in relation to the carriage service, as if the ACCC had: (a) made an instrument under subsection 350A(1) of that Act declaring the service to be a declared carriage service for the purposes of Part 17 of that Act; and (b) complied with the requirement set out in subsection 350A(3) of that Act in relation to the instrument.(3) This item does not prevent the instrument referred to in paragraph (2)(a) from being varied or revoked by the ACCC in accordance with subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.(4) The amendments of subsection 349(2) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 made by this Part do not affect the validity of the determination.(6) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 8 (lines 2 to 21), omit the Part.(7) Schedule 1, page 9 (before line 2), before Part 3, insert:Part 2A—Industry development plans15 Subclause 5(1) of Schedule 1Repeal the subclause, substitute:Declarations (1) The Industry Minister may, by written instrument, declare that a specified kind of carrier is a declared kind of carrier for the purposes of this clause.15A At the end of clause 5 of Schedule 1Add:Exemption certificates—applicants for carrier licences (4) The ACA may issue an exemption certificate to an applicant for a carrier licence if the ACA is satisfied that, if the applicant were to become a carrier, the applicant would be a declared kind of carrier. (5) The ACA must cancel an exemption certificate issued to an applicant for a carrier licence if the ACA is no longer satisfied that, if the applicant were to become a carrier, the applicant would be a declared kind of carrier.Exemption certificates—carriers (6) The ACA may issue an exemption certificate to a carrier if the ACA is satisfied that the carrier is a declared kind of carrier. (7) The ACA must cancel an exemption certificate issued to a carrier if the ACA is no longer satisfied that the carrier is a declared kind of carrier.Exemption—applicants for carrier licences (8) If an exemption certificate issued to an applicant for a carrier licence is in force, subclause 4(1) does not apply in relation to the decision to grant the licence.Exemption—carriers (9) If an exemption certificate issued to a carrier is in force, this Part does not apply to the carrier.15B After paragraph 1(x) of Schedule 4Insert: (xa) a decision under clause 5 of Schedule 1 to refuse to issue an exemption certificate; (xb) a decision under clause 5 of Schedule 1 to cancel an exemption certificate;15C Transitional—subclause 5(1) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Act 1997(1) This item applies if: (a) a declaration was made by the Industry Minister under subclause 5(1) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 in relation to a specified kind of carrier; and (b) the declaration was in force immediately before the commencement of this item.(2) The Telecommunications Act 1997 has effect, in relation to the specified kind of carrier, as if the Industry Minister had made a declaration under subclause 5(1) of Schedule 1 to that Act (as amended by this Part) that the specified kind of carrier is a declared kind of carrier for the purposes of that clause.(3) This item does not prevent the declaration referred to in subitem (2) from being varied or revoked by the Industry Minister in accordance with subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 15D Transitional—subclause 5(6) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Act 1997(1) This item applies if, as a result of a declaration under subclause 5(1) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Act 1997, Part 2 of Schedule 1 to that Act did not apply to a carrier immediately before the commencement of this item.(2) The Telecommunications Act 1997 has effect, in relation to the carrier, as if the ACA had issued an exemption certificate to the carrier under subclause 5(6) of Schedule 1 to that Act.(3) This item does not prevent the exemption certificate referred to in subitem (2) from being cancelled by the ACA under subclause 5(7) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Act 1997.(8) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 25), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 4—Instruments25 Subsection 589(6) (definition of this Act)Repeal the definition, substitute:this Act includes: (a) the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999; and (b) Parts XIB and XIC of the Trade Practices Act 1974.(9) Schedule 2, item 9, page 15 (lines 13 to 15), omit subitem (1), substitute:(1) This item applies if: (a) a final determination was made by the Commission under Division 8 of Part XIC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 before the commencement of this item; or (b) both: (i) a final determination is made by the Commission under Division 8 of Part XIC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 after the commencement of this item; and (ii) the final determination relates to an access dispute that was notified under section 152CM of the Trade Practices Act 1974 before 26 September 2002.(10) Schedule 2, item 10, page 16 (lines 12 to 20), omit subsection (4), substitute:Extension of expiry date (4) The Commission may, by notice published in the Gazette, extend or further extend the expiry date of a specified declaration under section 152AL, so long as the extension or further extension is for a period of not more than 5 years.(11) Schedule 2, item 10, page 16 (after line 27), at the end of section 152ALA, add:Public inquiry during 12-month period ending on the expiry date of a declaration (7) The Commission must: (a) during the 12-month period ending on the expiry date of a declaration, hold a public inquiry under Part 25 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 about: (i) whether to extend or further extend the expiry date of the declaration; and (ii) whether to revoke the declaration; and (iii) whether to vary the declaration; and (iv) whether to allow the declaration to expire without making a new declaration under section 152AL; and (v) whether to allow the declaration to expire and then to make a new declaration under section 152AL; and (b) prepare a report about the inquiry under section 505 of the Telecommunications Act 1997; and (c) publish the report during the 180-day period ending on the expiry date of the first-mentioned declaration. (8) If: (a) after holding a public inquiry under subsection (7) in relation to a declaration, the Commission allows the declaration to expire and then makes a new declaration under section 152AL; and (b) the report mentioned in paragraph (7)(b) was published during the 180-day period ending when the new declaration was made;the Commission is taken to have complied with paragraphs 152AL(3)(a), (b) and (c) in relation to the new declaration. (9) If: (a) after holding a public inquiry under subsection (7) in relation to a declaration, the Commission revokes or varies the declaration; and (b) the report mentioned in paragraph (7)(b) was published during the 180-day period ending at the time of the revocation or variation;the Commission is taken to have complied with paragraphs 152AL(3)(a), (b) and (c) in relation to the revocation or variation (as those paragraphs apply to the power of revocation and variation because of subsection 152AO(1)).(12) Schedule 2, item 11, page 16 (line 29), omit “152ALA(4)(b)”, substitute “152ALA(7)(a)”.(13) Schedule 2, item 12, page 17 (line 2), omit “152ALA(4)(b)”, substitute “152ALA(7)(a)”.(14) Schedule 2, item 13, page 17 (line 4), omit “152ALA(4)(b)”, substitute “152ALA(7)(a)”.(15) Schedule 2, item 60, page 29 (line 26) to page 30 (line 4), omit subsections (5) to (7).(16) Schedule 2, item 60, page 30 (line 30), omit “or (6)”.(17) Schedule 2, item 62, page 33 (lines 20 to 28), omit subsections (7) to (9).(18) Schedule 2, item 62, page 34 (after line 9), after subsection (10), insert: (10A) The expiry time for the order may be described by reference to the end of a period beginning when the service or proposed service becomes an active declared service. (10B) Subsection (10A) does not, by implication, limit subsection (10).(19) Schedule 2, item 62, page 35 (lines 20 to 22), omit subsection (17).(20) Schedule 2, item 74, page 42 (line 25), at the end of subsection (7), add: To avoid doubt, if the undertaking is subject to limitations, the service supplied by the person is a declared service only to the extent to which the service falls within the scope of the limitations.(21) Schedule 2, item 95, page 48 (line 29), after “section 152AR”, insert “(disregarding subsection 152AL(7))”.(22) Schedule 2, item 95, page 51 (after line 8), at the end of subsection (2), add:Note: Section 152AH contains a list of matters to be taken into account in determining whether terms and conditions are reasonable.(23) Schedule 2, item 95, page 51 (lines 9 to 20), omit subsections (3) to (6).(24) Schedule 2, item 95, page 52 (line 31), after “section 152AR”, insert “(disregarding subsection 152AL(7))”.(25) Schedule 2, page 68 (after line 5), after item 121, insert:121A Section 151ABInsert:content service has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications Act 1997.(26) Schedule 2, item 124, page 68 (after line 18), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) The Minister may only give a direction under subsection (1) that: (a) requires the Commission to exercise its powers under section 151BU, 151BUDA, 151BUDB or 151BUDC; or (b) requires the Commission to exercise its powers under section 151BU, 151BUDA, 151BUDB or 151BUDC in a particular way. (1B) The Minister may give a written direction to the Commission requiring it, in the event that it receives a specified Ministerially-directed report, to: (a) prepare a specified kind of analysis of the report; and (b) publish the analysis within a specified period after receiving the report.Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (1C) The Minister may give a written direction to the Commission requiring it, in the event that it receives a report in a specified series of Ministerially-directed periodic reports, to: (a) prepare a specified kind of analysis of the report; and (b) publish the analysis within a specified period after receiving the report.(27) Schedule 2, item 124, page 68 (line 22), omit “this section”, substitute “subsection (1)”.(28) Schedule 2, item 124, page 68 (after line 30), after section 151BUAA, insert:151BUAAA Minister to give direction to Commission about Telstra's wholesale operations and retail operations (1) The Minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a special Telstra direction is given within 6 months after the commencement of this section. (2) For the purposes of this section, a special Telstra direction is a direction under section 151BUAA that: (a) relates to Telstra's wholesale operations and retail operations; and (b) requires the Commission to exercise its powers under section 151BU to make rules requiring Telstra to: (i) keep and retain particular records; and (ii) prepare reports consisting of information contained in those records; and (iii) give those reports to the Commission; and (c) requires the Commission to exercise its powers under at least one of sections 151BUDA, 151BUDB and 151BUDC in relation to those reports. (3) Before giving a special Telstra direction in compliance with subsection (1), the Minister must: (a) publish a draft of the direction and invite people to make submissions to the Minister on the draft direction; and (b) consider any submissions that are received within the time limit specified by the Minister when he or she published the draft direction. (4) This section does not, by implication, limit the Minister's powers to give subsequent directions to the Commission in relation to Telstra's wholesale operations and retail operations. (5) In this section:Telstra has the same meaning as in the Telstra Corporation Act 1991.wholesaleoperations includes operations in relation to services that Telstra supplies: (a) to itself; or (b) to other persons, in order that the other persons can provide carriage services and/or content services.(29) Schedule 3, page 76 (lines 2 to 25), omit the Schedule.16:52:0010004Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The Telecommunications Competition Bill 2002 was passed by the Senate yesterday with a number of amendments made by the government, the opposition and the Australian Democrats. The government is of the view that this piece of legislation should not be held up, as this would increase regulatory uncertainty for the telecommunications industry. Accordingly, the government believes the House should accept the amended bill. The government amendments aim to improve the proposed accounting separation framework which will be imposed upon Telstra. Firstly, Senate amendment (28) requires that all reasonable steps be taken to ensure that a special Telstra direction is given within six months of the commencement of the bill. The special Telstra direction is one that relates to Telstra's wholesale and retail operations. It requires the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to exercise its powers to make rules requiring Telstra to keep and retain particular records, prepare reports based on those records and deliver those reports to the ACCC.Secondly, amendment (28)(3) sets out the procedure that must be followed before the minister can make a special Telstra direction. The minister must publish a draft of that direction, invite people to make submissions on the draft direction within a specified time limit and consider any submissions that are received before making the direction. Thirdly, there are some minor technical amendments consequential to these amendments: Senate amendments (25) and (27). Fourthly, Senate amendment (26) clarifies that the minister may only give a direction to the ACCC to exercise its powers under this part in a way that means that the minister would not be able to give direction to the ACCC not to exercise its powers under these sections. Fifthly, Senate amendment (26)(1B) enables the minister to give a written direction to the ACCC requiring it to prepare a specified kind of analysis of the report and to publish the analysis within a specified period after receiving the report. Senate amendment (8) enables matters in an instrument to be incorporated by reference. The government amendments—Senate amendments (1) to (5)—also refine the amendments to the preselection provisions in the Telecommunications Act so that the ACCC will make the threshold decision on which services should be preselectable, but the ACA will determine the preselection requirement for those services, including exemptions from the requirements. Senate amendment (9) provides a right to seek merits review by the Australian Competition Tribunal in relation to access disputes that were notified to the ACCC before the introduction of the bill in the House of Representatives on 26 September 2002.The government amendments also include some minor technical amendments. Senate amendment (18) ensures that provisions relating to the expiry time of anticipatory class exemptions and individual anticipatory exemptions are similar. Senate amendments (21) and (24) amend provisions relating to special access undertakings 152CBA and 152CBF to make it clear that the reference to active declared service is a declaration in the ordinary sense, under 152AL(3), not the deemed declaration that results from the proposals in the bill, under 152AL(7). Senate amendment (20) is an amendment to proposed subsection 152AL(7) to clarify that, if a special access undertaking is subject to limitations, the service specified in the undertaking is deemed to be a declared service and is therefore subject to the standard access obligations only to the extent that the service falls within the scope of the limitations.In addition to the government amendments, some non-government amendments were passed by the Senate. While the government does not believe that these amendments are necessary, it does not consider that they detract from the significant overall benefits that will be achieved from the passage of the bill. Therefore, the government believes that the House should accept these amendments. These amendments include an amendment which means that telecommunications carriers will continue to have an obligation to lodge industry development plans. As a consequence of this amendment, a further government amendment was made to the bill to improve the exemption and verification process for industry development plans. This amendment allows the industry regulator, the Australian Communications Authority, to exempt certain specified kinds of carriers from the obligation to lodge industry development plans. Senate amendments (10) to (14) to part 3 of schedule 2 require the ACCC to hold a public inquiry before a declaration under section 152AL of the Trade Practices Act expires. Amendments to parts 11 and 12 of schedule 2—amendments (15) to (17), (19), (22) and (23)—remove the requirement that the ACCC have regard to the views of the minister in its consideration of anticipatory exemptions and special access undertakings.The government considers that the bill as amended will provide a boost to competition by making the telecommunications competition regime more timely, effective and accountable. I therefore recommend that the House agree to the bill as amended.Question agreed to.Bills10006R157310006Consideration resumed from 9 December.Senate's amendments— (1) Title, page 1 (line 9), after “settlements”, insert “and structured orders”.(2) Clause 1, page 1 (line 14), after “Settlements”, insert “and Structured Orders”.(3) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add “and structured orders”.(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 8), at the end of the heading to Division 54, add “and structured orders”.(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 19), after “settlements”, insert “and structured orders”.(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 20), after “settlement is”, insert “and what a structured order is”.(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 2 to 16), omit section 54-5, substitute:54-5 Definitions In this Division:date of the settlement or order: (a) for a *structured settlement, means: (i) the date on which the agreement that is the structured settlement was entered into; or (ii) if that agreement depends, for its effectiveness, on being approved (however described) by an order of a court, or on being embodied in a consent order made by a court, the date on which that order was made; and (b) for a *structured order, means the date on which the order was made.personal injury annuity means an *annuity: (a) that is purchased under the terms of a *structured settlement as mentioned in paragraph 54-10(1)(e); or (b) that is purchased under the terms of a *structured order as mentioned in paragraph 54-10(1A)(e).personal injury lump sum means a lump sum: (a) that is purchased under the terms of a *structured settlement as mentioned in paragraph 54-10(1)(e); or (b) that is purchased under the terms of a *structured order as mentioned in paragraph 54-10(1A)(e).(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 17), at the end of the heading to section 54-10, add “and structured order”.(9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 8 to 17), omit paragraph (e), substitute: (e) under the terms of the settlement, some or all of the compensation or damages is to be used by the defendant, a person with whom the defendant has insurance against the liability to which the claim relates, the injured person or the injured person's legal personal representative to purchase from one or more *life insurance companies or State insurers: (i) an *annuity or annuities to be paid to the injured person, or to a trustee for the benefit of the injured person; or (ii) such an annuity or annuities, together with one or more lump sums that are also to be paid to the injured person, or to a trustee for the benefit of the injured person.(10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 17), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) A structured order is an order of a court that satisfies the following conditions: (a) the order is made in respect of a claim that: (i) is for compensation or damages for, or in respect of, personal injury suffered by a person (the injured person); and (ii) is made by the injured person or by his or her *legal personal representative; (b) the order is not an order approving or endorsing an agreement as mentioned in paragraph (1)(d); (c) the claim is based on the commission of a wrong, or on a right created by statute; (d) the claim is made against a person (the defendant) and satisfies the following conditions: (i) the claim is not made against the defendant in his or her capacity as an *employer, or *associate of an employer, of the injured person; (ii) the claim is not made under a *workers' compensation law, and is not made as an alternative to a claim under such a law; (e) under the terms of the order, some or all of the compensation or damages is to be used by the defendant (or by a person with whom the defendant has insurance against the liability to which the claim relates) to purchase from one or more *life insurance companies or State insurers: (i) an *annuity or annuities to be paid to the injured person, or to a trustee for the benefit of the injured person; or (ii) such an annuity or annuities, together with one or more lump sums that are also to be paid to the injured person, or to a trustee for the benefit of the injured person.(11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 18), omit “paragraph (1)(e)”, substitute “paragraphs (1)(e) and (1A)(e)”.(12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 28), after “agreement”, insert “, or in the order”.(13) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 30), at the end of section 54-10, add: (4) Before entering into a *structured settlement, the injured person must obtain independent financial advice about the best choices and the process and consequences of entering into a *structured settlement.(14) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 31 and 32), omit “structured settlement annuities”, substitute “personal injury annuities”.(15) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 8), omit “Structured settlement annuity”, substitute “Personal injury annuity”.(16) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 9), omit “*structured settlement annuity”, substitute “*personal injury annuity”.(17) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 17), after “settlement”, insert “or order”.(18) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 24), after “settlement”, insert “or *structured order”.(19) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 5), after “settlement”, insert “or order”.(20) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 9), after “settlement”, insert “or order”.(21) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 26 to 28), omit subsection (5), substitute: (5) The amount of the lump sum under subparagraph (3)(b)(ii) or subsection (4) is the *policy termination value of the *life insurance policy that is the *annuity instrument, as calculated by an *actuary as at the date of the injured person's death. In making this calculation, the following are to be disregarded: (a) any payments of the annuity due to be made after the end of the guarantee period; (b) any *structured settlement lump sums that are also provided for by that policy.(22) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (line 5), after “settlement”, insert “or *structured order”.(23) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (line 12), after “settlement”, insert “or order”.(24) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (line 22), after “settlement”, insert “or order”.(25) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (line 33), after “settlement”, insert “or order”.(26) Schedule 1, item 1, page 10 (line 1), omit the formula, substitute: Most recently published * All GroupsConsumer Price Index number* All Groups Consumer Price Index numberFor the same *quarter in the base yearwhere:base year means: (a) if there have been one or more previous years for which the indexation factor was greater than 1—the year ending immediately before the most recent year for which the indexation factor was greater than 1; or (b) otherwise—the year ending immediately before the *date of the settlement or order.(27) Schedule 1, item 1, page 10 (line 13), after “settlement”, insert “or order”.(28) Schedule 1, item 1, page 10 (lines 20 and 21), omit “structured settlement lump sums”, substitute “personal injury lump sums”. (29) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (line 2), omit “Structured settlement lump sum”, substitute “Personal injury lump sum”.(30) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (line 3), omit “*structured settlement lump sum”, substitute “*personal injury lump sum”.(31) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (line 5), omit “*structured settlement annuity”, substitute “*personal injury annuity”.(32) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (line 6), after “settlement”, insert “or *structured order”.(33) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (line 13), omit “*structured settlement lump sum”, substitute “*personal injury lump sum”.(34) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (line 14), after “settlement”, insert “or order”.(35) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (line 21), omit “*structured settlement lump sum”, substitute “*personal injury lump sum”.(36) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (line 23), after “settlement”, insert “or *structured order”.(37) Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (line 2), omit “*structured settlement lump sum”, substitute “*personal injury lump sum”.(38) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (line 4), omit “*structured settlement annuity”, substitute “*personal injury annuity”.(39) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (line 11), omit “making up the lump sum worked out”, substitute “taken into account in working out the amount of the lump sum”.(40) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (lines 17 and 18), omit “*structured settlement annuity or a *structured settlement lump sum”, substitute “*personal injury annuity or a *personal injury lump sum”.(41) Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (line 10), after “settlements”, insert “and orders”.(42) Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (lines 20 and 21), omit “structured settlement provisions”, substitute “structured settlements and orders provisions”.(43) Schedule 1, item 1A, page 15 (line 1), omit “*structured settlement annuity”, substitute “*personal injury annuity”.(44) Schedule 1, item 1A, page 15 (line 3), omit “*structured settlement lump sum”, substitute “*personal injury lump sum”.(45) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 4), after item 1A, insert:1B Subsection 995-1(1)Insert:policy termination value, in relation to a *life insurance policy at a particular time,means the amount that is, within the meaning of the *Solvency Standard, the termination value of that policy at that time.(46) Schedule 1, item 2, page 15 (line 9), at the end of the heading to Division 2A, add “and structured orders”.(47) Schedule 1, item 2, page 15 (lines 12 to 14), omit the definition of date of the settlement.(48) Schedule 1, item 2, page 15 (after line 14), after the definition of date of the settlement, insert:structured order has the same meaning as it has in Division 54 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.(49) Schedule 1, item 2, page 16 (line 12), after “settlements”, insert “and structured orders”.(50) Schedule 1, item 4, page 17 (line 10), after “settlements”, insert “and structured orders”.(51) Schedule 1, item 5, page 17 (line 17), after “settlements”, insert “and structured orders”.(52) Schedule 1, item 6, page 17 (lines 19 to 21), omit the item, substitute:6 Section 11-15 (after the table item headed “social security or like payments”)Insert: Structured settlements and structured ordersannuities and lump sumsSubdivisions 54-B, 54-C and 54-D(53) Schedule 1, item 10, page 18 (lines 8 and 9), omit the definition of date of the settlement, substitute:date of the settlement or order, for a *structured settlement or a *structured order, has the meaning given by section 54-5.(54) Schedule 1, item 11, page 18 (line 13), after “settlement”, insert “or a *structured order”.(55) Schedule 1, item 12, page 18 (lines 16 and 17), omit the definition of injured person, substitute:injured person: (a) in relation to a *structured settlement, has the meaning given by subparagraph 54-10(1)(a)(i); and (b) in relation to a *structured order, has the meaning given by subparagraph 54-10(1A)(a)(i).(56) Schedule 1, item 12A, page 18 (line 20), omit “*structured settlement lump sum”, substitute “*personal injury lump sum”. (57) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 20), after item 12A, insert:12B Subsection 995-1(1)Insert:personal injury annuity has the meaning given by section 54-5.12C Subsection 995-1(1)Insert:personal injury lump sum has the meaning given by section 54-5.12D Subsection 995-1(1)Insert:structured order has the meaning given by section 54-10.(58) Schedule 1, items 14 and 15, page 18 (line 24) to page 19 (line 3), omit the items.(59) Schedule 1, item 16, page 20 (line 9), at the end of the heading to Division 54, add “and structured orders”.(60) Schedule 1, item 16, page 20 (line 17), after “settlement”, insert “or order”.(61) Schedule 1, item 16A, page 21 (line 8), after “settlement”, insert “or order”.(62) Schedule 1, item 17, page 22 (line 6), after “settlement”, insert “, or under a structured order,”.(63) Schedule 1, item 17, page 22 (line 7), omit “date of the settlement (within the meaning of that Division)”, substitute “date of the settlement or order”.(64) Schedule 1, item 17, page 22 (after line 8), at the end of the item, add:(2) In subitem (1), structured settlement, structured order and date of the settlement or order have the same meanings as they have in Division 54 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.16:59:0010009Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments (1) to (8), (10) to (12) and (14) to (64) be agreed to, and that amendments (9) and (13) be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House—and I have spoken to my friend opposite—to first consider amendments (1) to (8), (10) to (12) and (14) to (64) and, when those amendments have been disposed of, to consider amendments (9) and (13).10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the House in agreement?83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Yes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I move:That Senate amendments (1) to (8), (10) to (12) and (14) to (64) be agreed to.17:00:0010009McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—I will be brief because the opposition support these amendments to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Structured Settlements) Bill 2002. We supported them in the Senate, and they accord with our commitment to ensuring appropriate flexibility for structured settlements arrangements. We believe that offering this increased flexibility will mean that more people will take up such arrangements. This will provide consequent benefits both for the injured person, who will have a guarantee of a steady stream of income, and for insurers. It will allow continuing downward pressure to be placed on insurance premiums.Consistent with our amendment to the same purpose, the opposition believe that the injured person should also be given the opportunity to purchase the annuities—that is, it should not be restricted just to the defendant insurer. It is a pity that the government has not picked up our amendment to that effect, but its amendment is in the same direction, although it does not achieve the purpose for which ours was designed. However, we supported the principle of the amendments in the Senate, and we are happy to support that again.Question agreed to.17:02:0010009Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That amendments (9) and (13) be disagreed to.These amendments are quite different and they apply to different sections of the bill but, for reasons of convenience, as discussed with the shadow minister, it is appropriate, given the time constraints, to handle them together. The government opposes amendment (9), which was moved by the opposition. It would allow the injured person or his or her legal representative to purchase a tax-free annuity or deferred lump sum. This replaces the requirement in the bill that the defendant or his or her insurer must agree to purchase the annuity. The government believes that requiring a defendant or his or her insurer to purchase an annuity in order to qualify for the tax concessions contained in this bill is desirable for a number of reasons. The tax exemption provided by this bill is intended to encourage the take-up of income streams in place of lump sum compensation. This has the potential to place downward pressure on settlement costs and therefore on insurance premiums. This benefit could be lost if the injured person could choose whether or not he or she purchased the annuity with what was essentially a lump sum compensation award. The approach of the government ensures that the annuity is used to meet expenses arising from injuries rather than for a different purpose. Further, under the amendment moved by the opposition, there would need to be administrative arrangements established to ensure that annuities are purchased with the funds received. The opposition amendment introduces the potential for an injured person to agree to purchase an annuity but not to follow through, despite his or her initial intentions. Requiring the defendant or insurer to make the final purchase ensures that only funds received in compensation are used to purchase the structured settlement, rather than other funds. Requiring the defendant or insurer to make the purchase also encourages financial planning beforehand. It enables settlements to be reached with the defendant to take into account longer term considerations.Requiring defendants to purchase annuities has worked well overseas and is considered best practice. The requirement is supported by the structured settlements group, which represents both defendant and plaintiff based organisations. For these reasons, the government does not support the opposition amendment. In the circumstances, my friend opposite might be prepared to reconsider the position of the opposition.Amendment (13) was moved by the Australian Democrats in the Senate. It will not come as any surprise to the House that the government also opposes the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. This amendment would require insured persons to obtain independent financial advice before entering into a structured settlement. However, there is no definition of an independent financial adviser in this context, so the provision would be difficult to enforce. The nature of the advice to be sought is also poorly defined. As it stands, each case would require a decision about whether the advice was independent and whether it was financial advice before adherence to the terms of the law could be determined. Furthermore, it is not clear what the consequences would be if the injured person failed to obtain independent financial advice. Because of the position of the amendment in the bill, it is not clear whether the intention is that this should mean that the exemption is denied. For these reasons, the government does not support the amendments circulated by the Democrats and carried in the other place.17:06:0010010McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—Both of these amendments are suffering from what is called the `not invented here' syndrome—that is, if the government decides it cannot agree to amendments because they were not its idea, it comes up with the most convoluted arguments as to why it should not be the case. I accept that there are people who have been seriously involved in the longstanding and quite correct campaign in support of structured settlements who disagree with Labor's amendment in principle. I do not agree with them, but I do accept that. However, I have to say that, although Labor were not passionate about the Democrats amendment—we supported it in principle, but it was not ours—the government was really straining to come up with an argument that warranted voting against it.I want to say something in support of both amendments, particularly that which we initiated, but I want to make it clear right at the beginning that we have said from the outset that our commitment has been, since long before the last election and long before the crisis became publicly perceived in the areas of medical indemnity insurance, public liability and related matters, that we wanted to see structured settlements in place. It was our policy at the last election, and we will do nothing to interfere with it. So we will not be pursuing these amendments in the Senate in any way which runs the risk of holding up the bill. We want the bill to pass. It is a great pity it will not be a slightly better bill; nevertheless, structured settlements is a very positive principle and we welcome the government belatedly on board for the proposition. When we proposed it in the lead-up to the last election, they thought it was a bad idea and proposed not to do any such thing. It is another case of `not invented here'. I sometimes feel slightly guilty: if we had not proposed it, the government might have done it a lot earlier. If we had not proposed the amendment, the government might have considered the proposition more favourably—but there is this `not invented here' syndrome that gets in the way of good policy from time to time. With regard to our amendment—and I will be brief because it has been debated both here and in the Senate—I think the government has the economics of this wrong. The proposal that the opposition put forward would have enabled an injured person or their legal representative to buy a tax concessional annuity as part of a settlement. Essentially what we are talking about is equality of rights to put offers on the table at the time of the negotiations. One of the primary roles of government in a market economy is to make sure that people who get involved in negotiations have some sort of equal bargaining power. This proposition would have allowed it; the government's proposition does not. Our proposal would have ensured that the uptake of structured settlements was encouraged on its own merits rather than because of any inherent and structured unfairness in the bargaining process.We have taken on board representations that people have made to us about how it would be simpler to remove the timing concerns from the debate by restricting the purchase of such annuities to the time of settlement—we have accepted that. We think the amendment would have substantially improved the bill, enhancing its policy intent and encouraging the use of structured settlements in a responsible manner that protected the revenue, struck a more responsible balance between the competing interests and actually showed some understanding of the underlying economic principles that drive this proposition. I think it is a pity it will not be adopted. I suspect that sometime in the future it will be. But the most important thing is to get structured settlements in place; so we will not persist.I will be very brief about the Democrats amendment. As I said, it was not our proposition; it was theirs. We supported it; we voted for it; we support it in principle. The government has argued that it cannot be made to work in practice—and I listened intently to the parliamentary secretary's explanation. I am sure it was a brief he was given by someone else, and he put it to the best of his ability here.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—He put it pretty well.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I am sure that you think so. I do not hold him responsible for the quality of the argument. He was the advocate with a lousy brief, and we have all been in that position from time to time in this place. It does not seem to me to be too difficult to make the details work but, as I say, I am relaxed about the proposition. It is certainly not central to the principles that drive the bill. It is a peripheral matter and should not be allowed to get in the way of the central principles. (Extension of time granted) While I think it is a pity that the amendments are not being taken up, the bill itself and the principle underlying it are so overdue that we will do nothing to impede the passage of this bill.Question agreed to.17:11:0010011Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question agreed to. Bills10012R169810012Debate resumed from 5 December, on motion by Mr Slipper:That this bill be now read a second time.17:12:0010012McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—In rising to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Earlier Access to Farm Management Deposits) Bill 2002, I make it very clear from the outset that the opposition will be supporting this bill. It is a bill which amends the qualification conditions in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 for taxation concessions under the Farm Management Deposit Scheme. The opposition has been calling for such action on the FMD scheme for some time now. For example, on 19 November, the Labor Party released its national drought plan—the six-point plan—and one of the points that we raised then was the proposition that there should be exceptional circumstances relief for farm management deposits. So it would be the height of hypocrisy for us, having advocated it and the government now having come to the party, not to support that which we previously advocated. It actually has in its origins something of the matter relating to the last debate, where we advocate a proposition, it finally comes to fruition through the government taking what we see as a belated initiative and so we support the initiative.I will now look at some of the background. The FMD scheme allows eligible primary producers to set aside pre-tax income in profitable years to establish cash reserves to help meet costs in low-income years. Primary producers are allowed to claim a deduction when they make a farm management deposit and then, when an FMD is withdrawn, the amount of the withdrawal is included in their assessable income in the withdrawal tax year. This allows income smoothing by primary producers, to allow them to make provision for bad years out of the income of good years. As I recall, it is a principle that was established through income equalisation deposits in the agricultural sector and that has been extended to other taxpayers, and properly so, over the years—mainly in the period of the Hawke government—to artists, composers, performers, production assistants and sportspersons to average their income over a number of years.This is a sensible principle and it applies not only to agriculture; there should be income smoothing potential for occupations which have an intrinsic volatility of income. In particular, the Labor Party have long supported measures to address genuine cases to this effect in the area of primary production. In 1992, the current Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, introduced farm management bonds, which were the predecessor of the current Farm Management Deposit Scheme. He said at that time:Income smoothing and the creation of reserves can be useful tools in risk management. Mechanisms such as tax averaging and Income Equalisation Deposits (IEDs) have important roles to play in financial management ... The Government will ensure that the entire package of income taxation and associated measures is providing both correct and consistent signals to farmers to encourage sustainable and efficient management systems. I think that is a pretty good summation of the underlying economic public policy principles in this area. It was our policy in 1992 and it remains our policy now. I will now turn to the substantive provisions of this bill. It has to be recognised that, through operating programs such as the Farm Management Deposit Scheme, the Commonwealth is forgoing a certain amount of revenue compared with what would otherwise have been collected. This means, of course, that we have to take great care to ensure that only genuine cases qualify for such provisions. The primary integrity measure in the FMD scheme as it stands is that, to be eligible for the tax concession, no part of the deposit is allowed to be withdrawn within 12 months. We are moving to change that integrity measure; so, while I support it, we have to proceed with great caution. I want to outline it in a little bit of detail so that, in any future debates, the basis on which we are prepared to make this exception is very clear. At the moment, the only exceptions to this rule occur if the owner dies, becomes bankrupt, ceases to be a primary producer, or where there is a transfer to another financial institution. The principle underlying this integrity measure is sound. The genuine use of such a scheme is for long-term provision for bad years. It is not about allowing artificial manipulation of incomes to switch income from the end of one financial year to the start of the next. Having said that, we have discovered, from the recent awful experience of the current severe drought, that this integrity measure has plainly been too restrictive. Responsible farmers who put money aside last year in reasonable expectation of the circumstances they might confront, and have subsequently been hit by drought, have been unable to access their money without a retrospective tax penalty. That was never the intention of the scheme. The legislation will allow the tax concession to be maintained despite withdrawals being within the 12 months, under certain circumstances—and it is important that we define these fairly carefully. Firstly, it provides an exception to the 12-month waiting period for access to FMDs for persons in exceptional circumstances declared areas; secondly, it allows part of an FMD to be withdrawn within 12 months provided the remaining amount of the deposit is $1,000 or more and is retained in the account for at least 12 months; and, thirdly, it allows FMDs to be held in accounts of any term provided the amount is not withdrawn within 12 months from the date of deposit. The third point deals with a different problem from the one that we are primarily dealing with, but it is also valid and we support it. I note that the changed conditions regarding exceptional circumstances and partial withdrawals will apply from 1 July 2002. The changed conditions regarding term limits for deposit accounts will be backdated to the commencement of the FMD provisions on 2 January 1999, because they are so overdue and have been needed for almost four years. As I noted earlier, the FMD reform plan is welcome, but it comes only after sustained pressure from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for primary industries and resources on this issue. On 19 November they jointly announced, as a key point in Labor's national drought plan, an FMD relief plan for those in exceptional circumstances areas. Labor's policy was to improve the Farm Management Deposit Scheme by committing to:Providing flexibility in accessing Farm Management Deposits to allow farmers in EC-declared areas to withdraw deposits within 12 months, without penalty, in this financial year.This is almost identical to what has come forward from the government, so we are pleased that they have shown sufficient flexibility to take up our proposals in this important area. The proposed amendment to the laws protecting the tax concession for short-term FMDs is also welcome, but its adoption is even more belated than the EC proposal. According to evidence given to Senate estimates last month, the government has known about legal uncertainty over the tax status of short-term farm management deposits since July 2001 but failed to act. This was grossly irresponsible behaviour at a time when all farmers who had rolled over FMDs within 12 months of deposit since 1999 were facing potentially massive tax bills from a potentially unfavourable tax ruling. We are pleased that this issue has now been clarified through a legislative amendment, but it is overdue. We also consider that clarifying the conditions regarding partial withdrawals is a sensible extension of flexibility in FMD arrangements. Accordingly, Labor will be supporting this bill.I want to note a concern—similar to a concern I have expressed before—regarding the costing information that has come forward with this bill. We continually find with this government that the House is having to make decisions without being treated to the courtesy of a decent effort to provide costing information. It is a very arrogant approach. Of all the portfolio ministers in any government, you would expect the Treasurer to be the one who would pay due attention to the revenue impact of measures and ensure that the parliament is properly informed about them. After all, it is the Treasurer's responsibility.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—He is not interested.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Consistent with the increasingly cursory treatment he is giving his day job—as my colleague the member for Lowe says, he is not interested; he is merely waiting for the Prime Minister to declare his innings closed—we have seen an increasingly cursory treatment of the costing— 7K6Entsch, Warren, MP5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—You wish he was not! We have seen an increasingly cursory treatment of costings of measures in his portfolio. For example, we had the extraordinary spectacle of a consolidations measure costing a billion dollars being dealt with in a mere 50 words—that is $20 million a word. Then we had the demergers measure costed before us simply as `unquantifiable', due apparently to the difficulty in estimating the extent of behavioural change induced by the measure. The nominal cost of that measure was put in the region of a billion dollars, but the government did not see fit to provide a proper account of this expenditure to the House of Representatives. So it is part of a continuing pattern of behaviour. What do we find on this occasion? It is quite extraordinary. It says:... apart from a timing effect, the overall cost of FMDs in the forward estimates will not be affected.But it is precisely the timing effect that costs the money. That is what is the cost to the Commonwealth. If we are changing the timing effect, we are changing the revenue. We are not stupid; we can work that out. You owe us the courtesy of telling us what the effect of that will be. It is precisely the timing effect that constitutes the tax concession—that is what is good about it; and that therefore seems to be a pretty flimsy excuse for not providing a proper costing to the House. The tax expenditure by the Commonwealth on this program is now very substantial. On 20 November this year the Prime Minister said:As at the 30th of June last—that is, 30 June this year—43,000 Australian farmers had deposited over $2 billion dollars in the scheme.I continue to quote the Prime Minister, who went on to say:This reflects an approximate cost to the Commonwealth of $500 million in foregone tax revenue.So if the government can work out how much the program costs overall and if that is driven by timing effects, it does not seem to me too difficult for the government to meet its obligation to tell the parliament how much the measures in this bill will cost. When the debate is concluded by the parliamentary secretary I would very much appreciate him giving the House, the parliament and the people of Australia the courtesy of telling us what this is going to cost before we vote for it. Every citizen would want the parliament to know what proposed measures are going to cost before they are voted on. We support the proposition; we are not going to obstruct the proposition, we are going vote for this bill. But perhaps we should not have said that in advance. We might have got more courteous treatment if we had held out, but that would not have been very responsible. We are going to support it, but dealing with us in this way does not encourage us to support measures in the future.As I noted previously, on 19 November the Labor Party announced its six-point national drought plan which contained these FMD measures that have now been taken up by the government. In addition to that, we committed to changes to cut through the red tape, to help farmers protect core breeding stock, to address feed grain shortage concerns, to stop the buck-passing and squabbling that drives everybody so mad about Commonwealth-state relations in this and other areas and to get rid of duplication and target programs to help those in need. The government has made a half-hearted attempt to move in the same direction but it still has a long way to go. We would greatly appreciate the government adopting the rest of the national drought plan, not because it would be good for us—it does not make any difference to us—but because it would be good for the nation, particularly for the farmers and communities affected.But we should perhaps not be surprised that the government has been tardy in acting on drought relief. After all, the Treasurer took a very long time to be convinced that the drought was even a serious economic issue. In July, when he was asked directly about whether the GDP would be affected by the worsening drought, he replied: ... agricultural production is not a large part of Australia's GDP. So, the effect that it will have will affect that proportion of GDP that is made up of agricultural production.You can see him waving his hand dismissively in the press conference and saying, `That was clever! I got through that question at the press conference very cleverly.' But beneath the veneer of clever acting there is no substance. He simply missed the essential economic reality—which has come home to him now—that the flow-on impacts from this particular sector are very important for the rest of the economy. Apart from the dismissive attitude that the Treasurer had in July to the profound social concerns for so many businesses, families and communities, he missed the economic point, which is his ultimate responsibility. By the time of the release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook last month, the inescapable reality of the budget numbers had forced him to change his tune. The MYEFO noted that the current disastrous drought is likely to reduce economic growth for the whole country by as much as three-quarters of a per cent of overall GDP. To give you an idea of scale, that is actually a reduction of one-fifth of the budget forecast growth for this year, or nearly $6 billion. There were people screaming out, trying to tell the Treasurer in July that it was a big problem, but he would not listen.The MYEFO also said that total farm production is projected to decline by around 17 per cent in 2002-03, with much greater declines in grain production. It is clear that, by any measure, this is a drastic and severe impact on the national economy. But the Treasurer missed it. It is another example of that arrogance and complacency that led him to miss the slowly emerging train crash of the HIH collapse, the crisis in public liability insurance, the breakdown in corporate governance and accountability, the explosion in household and credit card debt and the clear signs that housing prices are rising unsustainably. In each instance, the Treasurer has either failed to see it or initially dismissed it and then, when it had finally become a crisis, he has acted belatedly. In each of these cases, a Treasurer who was concentrating on his job would have seen the signs early and headed the issues off before they became profound national crises. The Treasurer did not cause those crises but he failed to act early enough to head them off.These days the government talks a lot about pre-emptive doctrines; it talks rather too loudly and rather inappropriately about them. Maybe it should concentrate a little bit more on some pre-emptive action domestically to head off threats to the domestic financial security of ordinary Australian working families. This sort of real domestic responsibility is very important at the current time. Questions over the investment outlook, along with the high level of debt and the weak budget position, leave the economy particularly vulnerable if the government's assumptions about the breaking of the drought and the strength of the international economy prove too optimistic.It is a cause of continuing concern to me that, in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, the government's projections about economic growth and its consequential views about the budget are based on some very risky assumptions. To be fair, they are very explicit assumptions—as they should be. You do not have to dig in the document to find them; the Treasurer and the Treasury have been quite up front and have explicitly stated what their assumptions are—and some of them are the only assumptions they could have made. For example, they have made an assumption that the drought will last only for this season. It makes no sense in an economic forecasting document to make any other assumption, so I am not in that instance critical. I simply say it is, however, a risky assumption. It is the only one that could be made, but we all know that that means there are serious economic risks out there.The forecast about the international economy is certainly on the optimistic side of the collective opinion on how the international economy might go. I sincerely hope it is correct; it is very important for Australia that it is. The assumptions about housing are not only optimistic; today's figures make them look a little bit premature. With Christmas coming and Australian families under financial pressure—thanks to high debt levels and the high taxing policies of the Treasurer—it is vital that economic growth continues at a healthy level, so I hope all those assumptions come to pass. Even so, we will see the economy slowing. With all those assumptions coming through, it should start to pick up by next financial year. Let us all hope that is true. Particularly, let us all hope the assumption that this drought will not be long lasting is true, because it is having such a profound impact on so many Australians. I was recently out in the Dubbo area, in the Riverina and down in Mildura. While some of those areas, because they are based on irrigation agriculture, are actually still looking very green, out west of Dubbo there are some areas of prime agricultural land that I have never seen looking as they do. I have seen bits of Australia looking like that because I have been in the desert, but I have never seen what are renowned areas of great agricultural production in this country in such devastated condition. I have been in droughts. I grew up in Western Australia, and many of the farming areas are not so much drought prone—although droughts can occur anywhere—as very dry farming country. Yet, the area I saw was a shock to me even though I have been travelling in rural Australia for most of my life. Let us hope that, for human as well as economic reasons, the assumptions about the drought breaking are correct.What I really want to emphasise in concluding, and in coming back to the bill, is that we have to have the Treasurer focused back on the job. He has to focus on applying the kind of whole of economy and whole of portfolio scrutiny he gets paid to apply and on providing the sort of economic leadership Australians are entitled to expect. Rather, he has shown complacency and is marking time. We continually see the `these other issues aren't important enough to warrant my attention' attitude from the Treasurer in all of those areas I listed earlier, and we saw it with respect to ethanol in the parliament yesterday. This bill contains positive reforms to the qualifications on conditions for tax concessions under the FMD scheme and, as I indicated at the outset, the opposition will be supporting the bill. While the government has made a half-hearted attempt to adopt Labor's drought policy, it still has a long way to go. I hope it will put aside its political preferences on drought relief and implement the remaining elements of the national drought plan as soon as possible. We are pleased to see this measure—one part of our six-point plan—adopted and we support the bill to implement it.17:34:0010016Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—I am pleased to hear that the member for Fraser and the Labor Party support the measures in the Taxation Laws Amendment (Earlier Access to Farm Management Deposits) Bill 2002 to assist farmers, because this is one of those issues that really deserves strong bipartisan support. But, as always, politics has crept into the debate, and I have to answer some of the points the member for Fraser made. In 1993 I entered this parliament and in 1994 I became shadow minister for small business and women, and I toured extensively the drought affected areas of New South Wales. At that time, the then Labor Prime Minister, Mr Paul Keating, had no sympathy for farmers and, in fact, made a public comment that they should make provision for these events.I met with farming families in New South Wales that had been in the grip of a horrendous drought for four successive years. The experience of touring those areas and of talking to the men and women on the land will be forever etched in my memory. It was a very sad situation. Some of the women were going into the towns once a week, taking a shower and doing the family laundry because there was no water to shower or do the family laundry with. The women in towns like Casino and other towns in New South Wales had gathered together and done a roster so that the women had a place to go to do the washing and have a shower. They were keeping their water to try to keep their breeding herd alive so that, when the drought broke, they had something to go back to. There were many occasions when we cried together, and I was very touched by that. Even talking about it now brings out that emotion. It was a very emotional experience. I came back to the parliament determined to try to influence government—and the opposition at that time—to recognise that drought is a feature of the Australian landscape and that we really need to have a policy that is responsive to these events. It was not until 1994, when Ray Martin and the first Farmhand project really gripped the imagination of the people, that Paul Keating and the Labor Party were shamed into doing something to assist those farmers. I have to make that point.As for economic management, I think our Treasurer has done an outstanding job of demonstrating economic leadership. The Treasurer, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, and all of cabinet have, I think, been very responsive to the impact of this drought, which is the most severe we have seen in 100 years. They have been very responsive to the needs of Australian farmers and, indeed, the farming communities. It is not only farmers who are affected. During that trip, one of the things that was brought home to me very strongly was that it is not just the farming community that suffers during these occasions; it is the businesspeople and it is the families that live in the towns that support the farming community. The Prime Minister and the cabinet, including the Treasurer, have put together a very responsive package which addresses the needs of the whole farming community.But drought is a regular event in Australia, and with the country in the grip of this drought right at the moment farming families all over the country are severely affected. This time it is not just in New South Wales; it is affecting my state of Western Australia. A drought of this magnitude really does highlight the importance of agriculture. On that point, I agree with the member for Fraser that it does have quite a substantial impact. With the Reserve Bank forecast of a reduction in income of $7 billion, it is not only the rural communities that will feel the effects of this year's drought. This forecast represents about one per cent of our domestic growth, and it is significant. Harvesting is not yet complete, but there are already signs that the yields will be substantially down on last year's.The electorate of Pearce in Western Australia is not as hard-hit as other areas in Western Australia or other areas of Australia. But the further east you go in Western Australia the worse it gets, and some farmers have not even put in a crop this season. In parts of Pearce, the harvest is going to be well down on what it was last year. I have been ringing around talking to farmers, because in different areas it is a different scene. In some parts of my electorate they are having the best season they have had; but in York, for example, one farmer told me that he usually exports 2,500 tonnes of hay. This year, having just finished cropping his hay, he will export 200 tonnes of hay. That is a very big reduction. Some farmers are just starting to crop some wheat, and this year's crop looks like being down 60 per cent on last year's crop.The shortage of grain is impacting on prices for stock feed as well. It does have a ripple effect in the community, and that in turn will affect other consumable goods and food products. Pig farmers in my electorate have sufficient water, but the price of grain is making it too expensive for them to continue to raise pigs. They are quite concerned about the situation. The high cost of feed exacerbates the plight of many farmers who run stock, and they have trouble keeping their breeding herds alive. Apart from the immediate impact of having little or no income stream now and in the immediate future, the loss of their breeders denies these farmers the opportunity to restart their operations when the drought does break.Some relief may come from imported grain, which I believe is keeping the price of local produce at a slightly more affordable level. However, I was very pleased to hear in yesterday's announcement by the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Warren Truss, that the Commonwealth will introduce a significant new measure to assist farmers to meet the cost of stock feed and to manage drought recovery. This should not be viewed as an expense but as an investment in the future, as it can take many years to develop good breeding stock. I was also extremely pleased to read in the Prime Minister's press release on the new drought measures that there will be additional spending on top of the $360 million that was announced just recently. A further $368 million has been committed by the federal government over three years. These are comprehensive measures that will provide financial support to farmers and communities hardest hit by the drought. These new measures are, as I said, on top of the $360 million that the Commonwealth is already expecting to spend in areas that are declared exceptional circumstance areas.The government has decided to provide six months interim income support for all eligible farmers in areas suffering a one in 20-year rainfall deficiency over nine months—that is, March 2002 to November 2002. The Prime Minister has made the point—and I think this is an important point, because some areas may not be in this category now—that should the proportion of farmers affected in like manner in any other state reach 80 per cent, then eligible farmers across the whole state will have access to similar interim income support. Eligibility for the additional support available under full exceptional circumstances support arrangements will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis under the existing criteria. In addition, the government will provide an interest rate subsidy on new and additional loans up to $100,000, available for two years for stock support and drought recovery. This will be available to all newly eligible farmers in the areas listed, and there is quite an extensive list. A number of those places in WA such as Jerramungup, Corrigin, Kulin, Lake Grace, Coolgardie, Cunderdin, Esperance, Morawa, Mount Marshall, Merredin and others will be eligible for support.I was also pleased to see in the Prime Minister's press release that small businesses in exceptional circumstance declared areas will also receive interest rate relief. Small businesses in affected areas face enormous financial hardship. Again, it has a huge impact on the town if they have to actually close down—and usually they never return to the town—so that is a very welcome announcement. These measures come on the back of other major announcements by the Prime Minister, who said in his recent press release:The Government is deeply sympathetic to the plight of farmers and communities suffering in this drought.He went on to say:We want to work with farmers and communities in helping them deal with this drought. We will continue to talk to farmers and their communities on how the Commonwealth may support them.I think the key to this responsiveness has been the consultation that has taken place with the Prime Minister personally, but also with the members of his cabinet who have responsibility for these areas—the Deputy Prime Minister in particular and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. As I said before, the federal government expects that, on the basis of current and conservative figures, exceptional circumstance funding will amount to some $360 million. The Prime Minister made it clear that, if more regions are declared, these will automatically be included and the amount will increase accordingly. In addition, the government will streamline the consideration of advice on exceptional circumstance applications to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay.This contrasts with the lack of action by the WA state government, which is once again to be found dragging its heels in response to the effects of the drought in Western Australia. Despite the fact that it has been known for some time that the season was going to be bad, particularly the further east you get, the WA government seems completely unprepared for the adverse conditions. In a recent article entitled `WA wants funds to go direct', Chelsea Cormell said that WA farm groups are urging the federal government to bypass state governments and typically slow channels of exceptional circumstances to spend additional drought relief on direct grants. She went on to say:The announcement by Prime Minister John Howard that spending could increase up to five times the current rate if drought persisted was welcomed by the WA Farmers and Graziers Association. But the groups agreed systematic changes were needed as states continued to refuse to participate in cost sharing arrangements and lengthy EC processes hindered the recovery of farming communities. PGA President Barry Court said under the current system little assistance flowed through to farmers because of State red tape and posturing. In a press release put out by National Party of WA representative the Hon. Murray Criddle, MLC, Agricultural Region, he accused the Gallop government of `incompetence by failing to assess the effects on Western Australia's economy of the worst drought in decades'. Apparently, the National Party wanted the official breakdown on the economic and social impact of the drought, but, according to Mr Criddle, all they got from the state Treasurer was a blank look. Mr Criddle went on to say:... many parts of WA have experienced three years of drought but the (WA) Treasurer hasn't bothered to assess the impact on the State's current economic position, the effects on small business in country towns, or the social effects on regional communities. We took the bureaucrats from Canberra through the Northern and Eastern wheat belt where they met not only with farmers but small business owners struggling to meet high interest payments and overdraft accounts because of the downturn.He continued:We were delighted that the Federal drought package included Centrelink assistance for business operators and workers who have been laid off or had hours reduced but we are disgusted that the Gallop Government has virtually left the regions to fend for themselves.By contrast, the Prime Minister and cabinet have been to visit some of the drought affected areas, have put together a package of measures and have responded in a very timely way to this crisis.Apart from the commitment to exceptional circumstance assistance, the Prime Minister announced additional measures on 27 November. These included a couple of million dollars of funding for personal counselling services in drought affected areas. This is very important because we know that, despite the fact that the farming community are a very stoic, tough breed and can usually work through their problems, when people are hit hard like this over a long period of time—and it sometimes comes on the back of frost or frost comes on the back of a drought—there is a limit to what people can endure. I believe counselling services are very important in rural areas during this time.Ten million dollars is to be put through the Natural Heritage Trust for environmental work in drought areas. This will target work that protects the land, water, vegetation and biodiversity resource base from the effects of drought, and will assist recovery. One million dollars is to go to a pest and animal management grant. This is an important drought management and recovery measure. Feral animals in particular can overgraze land which is in difficulty, and it does not recover or does not recover very easily. The government put $5 million into this year's Farmhand program and $1 million into the Country Women's Association Emergency Aid Fund to supplement the Farmhand program.In addition, the measures in this bill will assist farmers in exceptional circumstance drought declared areas to access farm deposits earlier than they would otherwise be entitled to. The Farm Management Deposit Scheme allows eligible primary producers to set aside pre-tax income in profitable years to establish cash reserves to help meet costs in low-income years. These farm management deposits complement other risk management strategies available to primary producers, such as developing fodder and water reserves, financial planning and diversifying their production systems. Primary producers can claim a tax deduction when they make a farm management deposit. When the farm management deposit is withdrawn, the amount of the withdrawal is then included in their assessable income in the withdrawal tax year. Currently, no part of the deposit can be withdrawn within 12 months, except in circumstances outlined in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. These include the death of the owner, bankruptcy or where a person ceases to be a primary producer or transfers the funds to another financial institution. Unless these circumstances exist, the funds will not be treated as a farm management deposit from the time the deposit is made. In recognition of the particularly tough drought conditions, the government seeks to amend this legislation to provide an exception to the 12-month waiting period for access to FMDs for persons in exceptional circumstance declared areas. That will allow part of an FMD to be withdrawn within 12 months, provided the remaining amount of the deposit is $1,000 or more and is retained in the account for at least 12 months. It will allow farm management deposits to be held in accounts for any term, provided the amount is not withdrawn within 12 months from the date of the deposit. The changes to the Farm Management Deposit Scheme are part of an important range of measures being taken by the federal government to assist farmers through one of the most crippling droughts on record. As I said before, many people are affected. This is the first time, since I have been here, that a government has given particular recognition to workers in these areas. I was pleased to see that the Prime Minister, in his press release, recognised that there will be increasing unemployment, even though it may be of a temporary nature. The government is keen to ensure that those who temporarily lose employment are kept in touch with the work force and are able to remain in their communities. Again, experienced work forces are important in farming communities. If some assistance can hold them together and get them over this temporary period, it would be a very important measure. This demonstrates that the government has done its homework, recognises what these communities need and has gone through the consultative process with people in rural areas to make sure that this package of measures to assist farmers will hit the right target. The government will introduce a number of special measures to assist job seekers in drought affected areas. These include establishing 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 flavour. In drought affected areas, this program will allow job seekers access to job seeker training as soon as they become unemployed and will allow employees facing imminent retrenchment access to job matching services. I want to finish with the words of the Deputy Prime Minister in his press release of 27 November: The entire community believed government of all persuasions should do what they can to relieve what he felt would be a “summer from hell” for rural communities.I completely support the measures in this bill.17:54:0010020Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I am happy to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Earlier Access to Farm Management Deposits) Bill 2002. This bill deals with substantial taxation measures which will also have economic and social effects. They will also have an effect on the integrity of the tax system. These particular changes need to be looked at closely because they may change the integrity checks that the previous bill encompassed. The core change to allow people to withdraw from the funds within the first 12 months will take away the protection that was there in the original bill, so we hope that it is soundly based. We on the Labor side think that this is well based, which is the reason we put this initiative in play before the government came up with not only this bill but anything near the genesis of this bill. Labor's six-point national drought plan was put forward by the shadow minister for primary industries and resources, Senator Kerry O'Brien, in conjunction with the Leader of the Opposition, on 19 November. I will talk to the key points in that plan later in this speech, but first I will cover the second core point in this bill.This bill realises what Labor put forward as a responsible opposition. We act as responsibly in opposition as we did when we were in government. When the member for Pearce commented, with regard to the former member for Blaxland and Prime Minister, that `Paul Keating had no sympathy for farmers' she was responding to what she thought was a political attack on the current Treasurer. It was ungenerous of her to put forward that political statement. I was there and I worked for the former Prime Minister at the time those statements were made. He had a bit of experience in farming and sharecropping when he was young. He certainly had experience in other areas of farming over a number of years, namely pig farming. We know that, day after day in this parliament and in the other place, the former Senator Michael Baume went through more than $300,000 of public money doing searches into the transactions and financial dealings of the former Prime Minister. How you treat farmers in difficulty is a question that Labor, when in government, tried to deal with in a responsible fashion, and I think we were successful in that. The current shadow treasurer alluded earlier in this debate to the fact that Labor put forward drought assistance plans while in government, particularly around 1994. Although they may not have been perfect, I have yet to come across any eternally perfect set of measures a government has put in place. It is always possible to redesign, to take into account changing circumstances, to see things within a larger context or to look at public policy avenues that are innovative and simply were not thought of by people in the past. When in government, our record in dealing with drought and the economic and social effects of drought on farming people was strong. The campaign against the former Prime Minister, and the campaign by the then opposition against our government, on these matters was reprehensible from start to finish. The member for Pearce's comments not only are ungenerous but they bring up the vast, dark stain that ran from one end of this parliament to the other—the more than a decade-long vilification of someone who gave his life and his strength to parliamentary life and to the service of the people of Australia, initially as Treasurer and then as Prime Minister. He had regard not to himself but to the public policy and governmental demands that were on him, as a minister of the Crown, and on the Australian Labor Party government that he was proud to be a part of and later to lead. That aside, Labor as a responsible opposition has put into place a plan not only for the current situation but also for the situation as it has been for a number of months now.The government may choose to attack Senator O'Brien, as shadow minister, because he is from Tasmania and not from the mainland. He is currently from Tasmania. They might attack him because he is from Chester Hill, because he grew up in the electorates of Reid and Blaxland, because he had a city background—as I have a city background. It may be normal for the government to do as they have done in the past: attack people and say, `You shouldn't talk about any of this stuff because you don't actually come from a country seat or a country area.' But even people in the city have backgrounds. My mother's family came to Bankstown in 1925 when she was, shall we say, of tender years—about one year old. I think the last time I referred to this she corrected me and said that it was when she was about four years of age. They came from West Wyalong. Why did they move from West Wyalong? Because in 1925 it was drought affected. The severity of the drought in the mid to late twenties made life in the country impossibly hard. You need to reflect on the fact that worldwide—Australia included—the 1920s were a period of enormous economic growth. Despite that, Australia's level of unemployment ran between five and 10 per cent throughout the 1920s. In country areas there was no assistance; you could not get any help. Even if you lived in the city, you were in a position where you were right up against it. Things were a bit better than they were in the two other great droughts that Australia experienced in the 19th century. There was the drought in the 1840s. At the end of the 1840s, the combination of the drought and the fact that not enough people were coming into the country meant that country areas were depopulated, there was not an adequate country work force and primary production levels dramatically fell in output and productive capacity. A much more significant period of drought was from 1890 until about 1905. The great drought of the 1890s took at least until 1905 before we got a resolution of it. Combined with the four great strikes of 1890 to 1894 in a country that had no social security provision whatsoever, that made it hard for people from one end of Australia to the other to survive. There was not only a lack of work, because people had been thrown out by their bosses, but also a country that was ill prepared for the intensity of the drought of the 1890s. Why was that the case? It was because the period from the 1860s to the 1880s was the greatest period of economic development Australia has ever seen—particularly country Australia, because the harvests were incomparably good, as the seasons were incomparably good. Anyone taking up farming in certain parts of Victoria, in the Wimmera or in those areas that opened up as wheat belts in South Australia and Western Australia experienced perfect conditions year after year, season after season, for three decades, and they came to think that these conditions were just the norm. The drought of the 1890s taught them that the norm in Australia is that this is a country of drought, and drought can be extremely severe and extremely difficult. My great-grandfather on my mother's side spent his time in country Australia as an engineer building bridges and roads throughout New South Wales. What he originally saw—a country that had been highly productive and that allowed for a large work force—was eroded to the point where it was very tough to survive in Australia. That understanding in fact informed the formation of the great trade unions, such as the Australian Workers Union, who fought for farming people, for the shearers and for those people who provided the work forces within the country and tried to get them a better deal, particularly from 1890 to 1894 at the time of the great shearer's strike and associated strikes. So Labor policy has its genesis in a period of drought. It has its genesis in a period of fighting for people who have not got much behind them when times are tough. When we were in government in 1994, when Australia was experiencing a period of drought, we tried to deal not just with the economic impact but also with the social impact of drought. That was also done at a state level. The six-point plan that we put forward—a comprehensive plan released in summary by the Leader of the Opposition and Senator O'Brien and the more extensive point by point enumeration of that plan—went to the core problems that we saw as not being addressed at the moment. The politics of this situation and the manner in which Mr Truss, as minister, has dealt with it were fully addressed in the matter of public interest put forward by Senator O'Brien in the Senate on 13 November 2002. He made a series of points not just about the laggardness of the minister in this regard but also relating to the fact that the minister and the government had an inability to see the larger ramifications of what was staring them in the face. This bill is effectively a Labor bill because it takes up point 2 of this national plan. We said that we should improve the Farm Management Deposit Scheme and that the government should provide flexibility in accessing farm management deposits to allow farmers in EC declared areas to withdraw deposits within 12 months without penalty in this financial year. The key to that is that, normally, in setting up any range of provisions, it is important to keep the integrity of the tax system in mind. I am sure that the secretary of the department, in giving advice to the Treasurer, ensured that the original provision was there. Why? Because this is a case similar to capital gains tax. If you buy a lot of shares, our provisions state that if you deal in those shares within twelve months you are effectively trading or speculating in those shares, and therefore you should pay your normal marginal tax rate on any profits made in that regard.After 12 months there is a concessional rate. It is treated differently now to how it was treated in our period, but it has the same rough effect. Post 12 months, it is a different regime. The regime relates to farmers who have opened accounts. According to the Prime Minister on 20 November this year, 43,000 farmers have taken the opportunity to open these management accounts, to the tune of $2,000 million worth of deposits. The way these accounts operate normally is that the person is allowed a tax deduction on the moneys put into that fund. Until this bill passes, and it will with our support here and in the Senate, when a person withdraws the money in another year—because it has to be at least a year on, and it cannot be a good year but a year when the person really needs it—then that person pays tax on that but at a lower rate. This is about the biblical good years and bad—seven years good, seven years bad. This goes to the point that the former Prime Minister made: in farming policy we cannot have the old National Party approach. The old National Party approach was: capitalise your profits, socialise your losses. It cannot be all one way. The minister at the table, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, the person coming after me, would know that his father and those other National Party members involved in pushing stuff forward—including Black Jack McEwen—fully understood that the bottom line in regard to this was that that was an epithet that could be tagged on them. It was tagged on them by Labor Party members at the time—and I think utterly appropriately. We have in fact seen it in a number of measures taken by this government—haltingly, almost blindly stumbling through—to actually attempt to bring back support from country Australia, to go over the line and press it. They are likely to go back to that policy when the farming community is in drought. We need a responsible policy with regard to this.As important as farming is, at six per cent of our productive capacity, it is different from what it was in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is fundamental for people in provincial towns. It is fundamental for those communities that depend on our farming activity. It is also fundamental for those farming communities that depend on the feedlot industry. It is important for a range of intensive industries because, as we all know, the nature of farming has dramatically changed over the last decades. That being said, we say that responsible policy is making this change, with some care, if you have an absolutely exceptional circumstance—such as the fact that this drought qualifies as being as bad as we have had in 100 years or so, back to the great drought of the 1890s. The integrity of the system should be maintained, and that is where the Taxation Office will need to monitor this over time. In this period of great need, you need to modify and change.We are glad that this idea we put forward is being taken up. The shadow minister has indicated that the government has dealt with one—point No. 2—and there are five to go. Of those five, there is a series—and I do not have time to go through the lot—that need to be taken into account. We have latterly had the announcement from the Deputy Prime Minister. A series of other measures will be looked at and attempted. These are the critical ones. It is no good just talking about them; we actually need to do it. The first point is to cut through the red tape. The second point we have dealt with. The third point is to help farmers protect their core breeding stock. That has been talked about in recent weeks. We were talking about this over a number of months. It is enormously important that that is done. There are practical measures that can be undertaken, and they are outlined in our six-point plan.Further to that—and it is our fourth point—we need to address the feed grain shortage concerns. In late November, around the 14th or so, the Deputy Prime Minister raised the question of grain imports. There has been permission given—the shadow minister indicated this in his speech of the 13th—to import sorghum, because we just will not have enough for next year. What our shadow minister called for then was what we had in the 1994 period of drought: an audit of those feed stock grains. We should not just guess at the situation, not just take punt at what we might or might not need to do, but actively plan forward into 2003. Even with the hope that this drought will break in 2003, we need to forward plan in this way.The fifth point is to stop the buck-passing and the squabbling. Today, the shadow Treasurer, and the shadow minister for primary industries and resources, Senator O'Brien, alluded to the fact that, if we are talking politics in regard to this, kicking the states to death for what they may or may not have done has been the game that both the Prime Minister and the minister in this House have played for many months now. It is not good enough to just belt the states and say, `Queensland hasn't done enough, so we'll kick them to death.' The member for Wide Bay, understandably, given it is his turf, might want to concentrate on that. It is not good latterly, because there is an election coming up in New South Wales, to say, `We've taken a fair bit of time—in some cases up to 264 days—to work out what the exceptional circumstances are in a place, and the New South Wales government is being slow.' The Commonwealth has a responsibility not only to process exceptional circumstances applications quickly but to stop playing political games. Case after case, issue after issue in these areas, that is what the government concentrates on. You are better off to just leave that aside and to take account of the fact that there is a coalition federal government and six state Labor governments. When there was one federal Labor government and six coalition governments, in 1994, we were able to work out a viable plan together, which was in the national interest. The sixth and last point is to get rid of duplication and to target programs to those most in need. Whatever the provisions are across our rural programs, we need to look at them and say: what's been there so far? We need to look at how they interoperate and how they mix, so that we can more effectively take account of what needs to be done and so that we can more effectively support the social situation of people in rural Australia. (Time expired)18:14:0010024Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Earlier Access to Farm Management Deposits) Bill 2002. This is a very important piece of legislation, particularly with the impact of the worst drought on record now affecting all of New South Wales and significant areas of other states. This bill aims to amend the Income Tax Act to provide an exception to the bill such that farm management deposits which have been held for 12 months or less can qualify for the tax benefits that they attract. The Farm Management Deposit Scheme enables farmers to set aside reserves in the good years as a tax deduction at that time and to withdraw that money in lean years and, of course, pay the tax at the marginal rate prevailing at that time. Normally, the tax benefits which accompany farm management deposits are available only when the deposits are held for 12 months or more. However, as I think any member of the House—even the opposition—recognises, these are not normal times or normal circumstances.Our farmers are struggling in a horrific drought. I was interested to hear the member for Blaxland talk about his mother's time in a drought in the 1920s. My earliest recollection in the sixties was, as a very small child, accompanying my father to shoot cattle on our property in a terrible drought. It is a very disheartening thing to get up every day and know you are going to go out and shoot cattle. At that time, we shot a lot of cows that were simply unable to support themselves or their calves. Mentally, it is a very difficult and distressing time for farmers. This initiative by the government to remove this 12-month deposit requirement is certainly a very welcome measure. It is a demonstration of the commitment of the Howard-Anderson government to Australian farmers. But, significantly, it is also time to look at what our state governments have done. I would like to refer to the package of measures that was announced yesterday. I think that most members of the House would agree that these were sensible measures to ensure that, when the drought finally does break, there is a core breeding herd and that people are in a better position to go forward and start producing for Australia again. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, each cow and each ewe can be seen as a production machine to first of all reproduce as quickly as possible after the drought. The measures announced yesterday for drought support include $368 million in one-off drought relief measures over the next three years. That is on top of the $360 million that has already been spent. There is six months interim income support for farmers who have suffered a one in 20 rainfall deficiency over the last nine months. That will enable all New South Wales farmers, as well as many farmers in Queensland, Victoria and other states, to access that. There is an interest rate subsidy for new and additional loans of up to $100,000 available for two years to eligible farmers. There is a similar subsidy for small businesses in areas that have declared exceptional circumstances, a recognition that those small businesses quite often suffer greatly because farmers simply are not able to spend. Finally, there is the establishment of a drought force. This is most important. So many of the employees on farms and in associated businesses in small towns find that the farm sector just cannot continue to pay their wages. They want to stay in the area because they have friends and family there, their children go to school there and so on, but they are generally forced to leave the town that they have worked in and to seek work in large cities. But, of course, when the drought breaks—as we trust that it will—they will be needed again; hence this work for the dole scheme, Drought Force, for drought affected areas. I note that the member for Riverina, sitting here beside me, was a great proponent of that scheme. In fact, she raised it. She was one of the first to raise this very worthy concept of keeping those who are so needed and who want to stay in their small towns and their farming areas as workers, and to ensure that they are given a holding pattern, if you like, through the Drought Force arrangements so that, as soon as the drought does break, they can go back to working on the farms and in the small businesses that they were originally employed in. There will be access to job seeker training for people in those drought affected areas. Certainly, the suggestions put forward by the member for Riverina have been taken up in a very worthy way.But what of state governments? With this very generous and sensible package to ensure that recovery from the drought happens as quickly as possible and that people are given a sensible and measured helping hand through this very difficult time, what of the states? They have given less than 10 per cent of what the Commonwealth is contributing.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Not Victoria.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I said `the states' as a whole. I gave others the opportunity and the courtesy of hearing them out; I would like the same courtesy.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—The member for Dawson has the call. The member for Melbourne will resist interjecting.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I say that the majority of the states will be judged very harshly by the farm sector, and by those who make their livelihood in the farm sector, as they see the little that has come from state governments. They have constantly refused to commit to an enhanced exceptional circumstances declaration—in fact, some states have not even put in exceptional circumstances applications—and that refusal will cost them dearly. But today is the day for the Commonwealth to be proud of the drought assistance measures put forward and to be proud of this bill, which is going to enable farmers to access the deposits they have put forward.I would like to refer now to the comments made by the member for Fraser, the shadow minister, in this debate. For somebody who does not ask a lot of questions in the House on economic issues, he was pretty quick to criticise the Treasurer. His criticism was that the Treasurer is not concentrating on his job. That is what he said: the Treasurer is not concentrating on his job. Let me have a look at whether in fact those remarks can be substantiated. Do not forget that we are in a very, very difficult drought—the worst on written record.So what did the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook show? It demonstrated the continuing resilience of the Australian economy, notwithstanding difficult international conditions and the worst drought on written record. Certainly, the government revised down its forecast for growth from the budget forecast of 3¾ per cent to three per cent, which is all drought related. The cash surplus forecast for 2002-03 is still around $2.1 billion. Again, this is notwithstanding the unexpected and, in many cases, tragic expenditure, such as assisting the victims of the Bali terrorist attack, enhancing our security in the wake of Bali, a large program of immunisation in relation to meningococcal and a medical indemnity insurance package. These are not things that governments can generally foresee at all, and still we have a cash surplus forecast of $2.1 billion.Yet the shadow minister has the gall to say that the Treasurer is not paying attention. By gee, you could not pay any better attention than getting a surplus of $2.1 billion in those sort of circumstances. It is a disgraceful slur in this debate to suggest that the Treasurer has not been paying attention. In the circumstances, he has done an exceptional job of finding the funding for very unexpected and tragic circumstances. I did not mention in the list I gave the exceptional circumstances funding as a result of the drought—$327 million over three years. What has been delivered as a result of that Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook is a lower unemployment rate than was forecast in the budget. This is going to mean savings of around $150 million. As I have just said, in the circumstances, that is an extraordinary result. The employment growth is forecast to be 1¾ per cent in 2002-03 in average terms. The unemployment rate is going to decline through the year to around six per cent. That is a pretty good result for somebody who, according to the shadow Treasurer, is not paying attention. As I said, economic growth in 2003-04 will rebound to four per cent. That is an extraordinary result. I think that the churlish remarks of the shadow Treasurer are just that: churlish and envious. The Labor Party, when they were in government, did not pay attention to a very serious matter. There was never an intergenerational report done when Labor were in government; they did not want to look to the future.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Heard of occupational superannuation? Who introduced that?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Melbourne!FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—They were not interested in what was going to face our children in terms of expenditure in coming years. The Treasurer really is paying attention—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—You have done a report; we actually did something.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Melbourne!FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—and not just to the budget now under these circumstances but to the future as expressed in the Intergenerational Report. You are embarrassed, and so you jolly well should be. The people not paying attention were the Labor Party members. Let me tell you who is paying attention.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Dawson will address her remarks through the chair.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Thank you for reminding me, Mr Deputy Speaker; I shall do as you instruct. Guess, Mr Deputy Speaker, who is paying attention?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—Who?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—The Australian people. Interestingly enough, the Newspoll survey of 2 December asked who is the best at handling the economy. Overall, 61 per cent of respondents nominated the government. And what is the view in terms of the ability of the opposition to handle the economy? Eighteen per cent of respondents said that they believed the opposition could handle the economy. Let me say who is concentrating: it is the Australian people. In terms of the Labor supporters surveyed, the majority—40 per cent—still believe that the government is the best to handle the economy. Only 37 per cent believe that it is the opposition. So the Australian people are definitely concentrating. Just as a point of interest, that also extends to national security—but that is not a debate for today.The churlish, envious, small-minded comments about the Treasurer not paying attention and not concentrating are just that: small-minded and churlish. The results in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook show that he has in fact not only been paying attention in these difficult and tragic times to unexpected claims on the budget through Bali, national security and the worst drought on written record but also returned in that period a surplus of $2.1 billion—and the record for unemployment shows that we will be able to bring that down to six per cent. What a result in these times.Those who concentrate—and obviously the Australian people do concentrate—know who is doing the job. They know who is sound on economic management and they know who is sound on national security. They understand. I am not surprised that the shadow minister is embarrassed and comes in here with small-minded and envious comments. You would have to be envious, wouldn't you, of a government that, even in these difficult times, can manage to deliver the outcomes that it has. This is a government that can manage to deliver for farmers, manage to deliver for small business, manage to deliver on unemployment and manage to deliver reports for our children and the future of Australia. It is an exceptional result and the shadow minister has, I think, in a small-minded and envious way, tried to have a go at the Treasurer. Well, unfortunately for him, the Australian people are concentrating, will continue to concentrate and, I have no doubt, will continue to support a government that takes a measured and commonsense approach to the difficulties that the nation faces. Sitting suspended from 6.28 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0010027Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise to speak this evening on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Earlier Access to Farm Management Deposits) Bill 2002 with great joy in my heart. This proposal, when put in place, seemed to offer too little to too few; however, it enabled our farmers to put aside an amount of money when their times were good in order to save for that rainy day—or that dry day, so to speak. The amendment is in response to the devastating impact that the drought is having on our farmers and on our rural communities. This widespread drought, now affecting 99 per cent of New South Wales and many other parts of Australia, appears to be the worst in 100 years. The Farm Management Deposit Scheme will be amended to provide an exception to the 12-month waiting rule for farmers in exceptional circumstances areas. Farmers in exceptional circumstances areas at the time the withdrawal is made are eligible to maintain the tax concession if they access the farm management deposits within the 12-month period. Under the current law, if a deposit is withdrawn within 12 months, it will not qualify for the concessional tax treatment. However, due to the current drought, the Prime Minister has announced an exception to that 12-month waiting period for access to farm management deposits for farmers in these exceptional circumstances declared areas.The amendment to the Farm Management Deposit Scheme will allow farmers who have put away their funds in order to prepare for some of those bad times to access their money substantially tax free. Many of the farmers who put away their income within the past 12 months in the event of drought, flood or low commodity prices would never have thought that a bad year could arrive so quickly and with such devastation. The scheme as it is today was introduced in 1997 by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. John Anderson, Leader of the National Party, and has been embraced by farmers, with one-third of Australian producers taking matters into their own hands. One would ask about the possibility of a similar scheme, or an extension of this scheme that is operating currently, to include battling small businesses, which are all affected by drought. Drought is everybody's problem. The Farm Management Deposit Scheme offers a commercial rate of return on deposits through 26 different financial institutions. The deposits attract tax only when withdrawn, and these deposits are tax free if taken out in poor seasons and low-income years. One could hardly say that this is a high-income year, so I welcome with great relief the changes to allow this bill to proceed.In June 2002, more than 43,000 primary producers had heavily invested over $2 billion in the Farm Management Deposit Scheme. What an extraordinary feat it was that our farmers were prepared to forgo the luxuries and perhaps the necessities in their lives to ensure that they were providing for their own futures. It is often said in and around the chamber and in meeting rooms that farmers expect too many handouts but, when you read the articles and headlines in most of the newspapers, farmers are still saying that they are optimistic for a good season next season but that, if the rains do not come by March, they will really be in trouble. For goodness sake—as if they are not in trouble now. Week after week and day after day, the dust storms that have enveloped my region have been horrific, so much so that I have had families calling me from areas around Hay, Booligal and Mord to say that they put their children to bed with wet washers over their faces and wet sheets and then dry sheets draped around them just so that they can breathe in the evening and get some sleep. That is the type of devastation they are experiencing as they watch their topsoil being blown hundreds of kilometres away from their lands. They watch as their topsoil and swirling sands fill up their waterways. They watch as these dust storms ravage and devastate their already devastated lands and decimate their children's health and their livestock. When you look at the resilience of farmers, you see that it has to be pretty bad before they will get up and complain. Still they say, `This is not really as bad as it could get; it can get worse.' I do not know whether I would think that things could get worse if I were living in those circumstances and I was having water carried to me day after day by contractors. The irony is that, should it rain, we will not have that water because most of our roads will be impassable—so that lifesaving water will not be able to be carried by the contractors. Right across my electorate there has been devastation unlike anything we have witnessed. Dust storms are ravaging the rich irrigation areas of Griffith, Leeton and Narrandera, right through to Wagga Wagga and Junee.In June 2002, more than 43,000 primary producers invested in this Farm Management Deposit Scheme, so they were looking out for themselves. The figures all show what a success the Farm Management Deposit Scheme has been and how strongly it is supported by Australian farmers. New South Wales farmers alone have made around 11,842 deposits worth over $547.8 million, with the average deposit for New South Wales being about $46,256. What a significant feat. As I said, I would be delighted if something like this could be extended to some of the small businesses in my electorate, which are feeling the effects of the drought significantly. They are looking at how to maintain not only their employment cycles but also their livelihoods in areas that have been so affected and ravaged.The biggest investors in the Farm Management Deposit Scheme in New South Wales on a sectoral basis are mixed farming enterprises such as sheep and beef with $154.5 million, followed by grain with a $142.8 million investment. Grain, sheep and beef are some sectors that have been hardest hit by the drought—the majority of the sectors in my electorate of Riverina—with crops either lost or substantially down on last year. When you look at the devastating frosts that hit us last year and in 1998, you can see that farmers who are living with the elements of the land certainly do have challenges that they have to meet every single day and that they stand up to every single day. The struggle to feed sheep and cattle is experienced on not only a weekly but also a daily basis. The sight of farmers travelling around in their four-wheel drives—barely able to keep them roadworthy—putting out farm fodder and produce for their animals is a sight that one should always take notice of.When we look at our producers being able to access their deposits earlier without losing their tax benefits we see that we are assisting them to continue that farming and that feeding. These deposits represent an amazing $600 million in tax benefits to our farmers—significant assistance provided by this government. When farmers take advantage of this early access provision, they will not be permitted to make any further farm management deposits within the same tax year, and that is only fair. If you are going to access the deposits and get yourself a tax benefit, surely you should not be able to make deposits. My office has received a number of inquiries from constituents wanting to know if there are any options available to take their money out early without incurring tax costs. My office has been receiving these inquiries day after day. Now I am very pleased and proud that I can inform my constituents that, with the passing of this amendment bill, they can access their deposit while maintaining the tax benefit. I am sure that there is no Australian who would deny the benefits going to these magnificent farming families.This government has recognised that many farmers who put money away before the drought struck need this assistance and need to access this much needed, well earned and well deserved money now that times are tough. We recognise this, and that is what this legislation that is before us this evening is all about. By allowing farmers to access their farm management deposits, we are helping them to survive until it rains and they can get back on their feet. Some of our electorates are experiencing a small amount of rainfall today—but sometimes, when it is so minimal, that can be an unfortunate thing. People generally think that if it rains the drought is broken—but the drought has not broken; in fact, it will be a long time before the drought is broken. Unfortunately, a small amount of rain can sometimes be worse than no rain at all, because the psyche of the Australian people seems to be that, if we get a few drops of rain, the farmers have got what they needed and they should not require any further assistance. But we all know that that is far from the truth. Our farmers are working extremely hard. One of the qualities of farmers that continues to amaze me is their ability to keep going on with an unbelievable spirit. As I said, it has been reported in the papers that farmers are still saying that they look forward with optimism for a new season and that they feel quite confident that they will get through this. How many people would have that unbelievable spirit and resilience? To many people, it would simply be too much. However, our farmers obviously have it in their blood—they eat it, sleep it, breathe it and are committed to it. They love working with nature and with their produce, and their contribution to this nation is amazing. In my electorate of Riverina, I see the trials and tribulations caused by the lack of water that have been faced by some of my industries, such as rice growers and the horticultural industries right across the electorate who have had their water allocations slashed dramatically under new environmental proposals with a view to a water sharing plan with the New South Wales government. They are in very difficult circumstances.I am fortunate enough to be working with the Pratt water group, who are looking to try to relieve some of these issues into the future. We are not talking about turning rivers back over mountains or drought proofing the nation; we are talking about the leadership of a fine Australian businessman, Richard Pratt, who has put forth his money—well in excess of $2 million—to assist me and my team to do a pre-feasibility study on the Riverina. We want to see how we are going to access water into the future and how we can have sustainable irrigation—not less irrigation but more irrigation—with a view to producing more for our export markets and providing much needed employment that is sustained by a very extensive, successful and environmentally conscious irrigation industry right across the Riverina.All of these challenges are being faced by all forms of farming. Irrigation farming is facing its own restrictions, its own drought. People might look at the irrigation of the MIA in my electorate of Riverina and say, `They're water wasters.' They are not water wasters; they are producers for this nation. They are not wasting water that could be given to dryland and broadacre farmers; they are providing valuable employment, valuable production, valuable export and industry to help this nation and to help some of these areas cope at this time when they are drought ravaged. This bill is about helping all farmers, not just our broadacre dryland farmers who are experiencing dustbowls but also those irrigation industries that are experiencing devastating water shortages due to the cut in their allocation of water.By allowing farmers to access this FMD money—which is their money that they have put in for a rainy day—they will be able to protect core breeding stock so that they can start again when the rains finally come. I was speaking with a gentleman on the phone the other night, and he said, `I have had to put off my farmhand, and my wife has had to leave her job in Hay to come home and help.' This family have not only been drought-ravaged but have had their income slashed so much that they have had to put off their farm help, and then they have had their second income taken from them so that they can both be on the farm performing duties to sustain them. I am so pleased and proud that the Prime Minister has taken on board the suggestion and has turned it around. With Minister Brough and Minister Abbott, he has turned this into an opportunity for Work for the Dole operations to be carried out on-farm. This is a fantastic initiative that will help farmers to have vital restoration works undertaken on their properties by people who are being assisted and supported with Newstart allowance because their usual employment has been terminated. I congratulate the Prime Minister for acting on this initiative and for moving so fast to have this put in place. I believe it will provide enormous assistance to those areas to, for example, repair fences and fence off dams so that sheep will not become bogged and lose their lives. Some farmers in my electorate are feeding every single day and yet they see their stock being drowned in mud because the stock cannot get out when they go down to drink at their waterholes. My electorate of Riverina is, like many areas throughout Australia, drought declared. Many communities are experiencing one of the driest seasons in more than 100 years of records. For Cootamundra, which has records dating back to 1889, this spring has been the third driest in its recorded history. For the two months of October and November this year, Cootamundra has received just 3.6 millimetres of rain. I notice that the member for Hume has just walked in. He is a long-time supporter of Cootamundra.83QSchultz, Alby, MPMr Schultz—We had rain today.83OHull, Kay, MPMrs HULL—That is great news. A Cootamundra farmer was saying that, over the last five years, he has had only one good year. There was drought in 1997, frosts in 1998, a grain price collapse in 1999, one good year in 2000 and frosts in 2001. It makes you feel, `How can I assist these magnificent people?' They are suffering more defeat now, with Shepherds Woolskins being placed in an absolutely untenable position by some of the issues that have surrounded them while they have been trying to run a successful business. The dynamic small community have rallied to help this industry continue to employ its people, and they are rallying once again to ensure that they can continue with this business. We held meetings with Shepherds Woolskins yesterday, and I am looking forward to ensuring a more positive outcome for them and for everyone in Cootamundra, because they have really done it tough over the last few years. With the very best of representation that they have received, one cannot produce miracles. One cannot produce rain and one cannot prevent frosts from striking down fields and their crops. This government that I belong to has made me very proud. This government has continued to offer support in the form of exceptional circumstances assistance, which is expected to be more than $370 million over the next two years. That is on top of the exceptional circumstances and relief packages that are already in place. The legislation to allow early access for these deposits is further evidence of the government's support for our farmers. In all, this government will have provided over $1 billion in assistance to our farmers. I ask: how much has the New South Wales government contributed to the circumstances of our farmers in need?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Not much at all.83OHull, Kay, MPMrs HULL—That is right: not much at all. I call on them to stand up and be counted. Stand up and join forces; put your political differences aside and come on board. Travel around and look at the devastation. Feel it, experience it and do something about it. Come along with us to assist our communities—not just our farmers but our small businesses. We want to help our country Australians to keep living in country Australia. We need as much assistance as we can get. I say to this government: congratulations. (Time expired)20:20:0010030Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—in reply—The government would like to take this opportunity to thank all honourable members on both sides who have supported the Taxation Laws Amendment (Earlier Access to Farm Management Deposits) Bill 2002. This is a particularly important bill, and the member for Fraser indicated that the opposition was in support of this government's initiative. We welcome that support. The member for Pearce, as always, delivered quite a thought-provoking contribution. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank her for reminding us of the importance of rural communities and the impact of drought on rural towns. This is something that the government has been mindful of in designing its relief package, including the six months income support for eligible farmers, the interest rate subsidies to farmers and small businesses in drought affected areas, measures to assist job seekers in drought affected areas, and a range of other measures. The government wants to recognise the contribution made by country Australia to the nation's prosperity, and members on both sides of the House have indicated their support for the important changes contained in this legislation. I thank the member for Dawson, on behalf of the government, for reminding us all of the further measures announced yesterday by the Prime Minister. Quite rightly, she noted the importance of the assistance extended by this government to those job seekers in drought affected areas. The member for Fraser, although supporting the bill, suggested that income smoothing should be applied to sources of volatile income. The member for Fraser, having been a former parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer in Labor times, would know that it is a basic principle of income tax that all income is taxed the same, regardless of source. This principle ought only to be departed from in exceptional cases, such as primary production, sports people and artists. This is a principle of basic equity and, for reasons of equity, such measures should only be adopted in very special cases. I think there is probably broad support for that particular approach.The member for Fraser also suggested that there was inadequate costing information. That simply is not accurate. These measures assist farmers in extreme financial difficulty. Farmers who qualify for the exceptional circumstances concession are able to withdraw their deposits within 12 months of making them. However, the amount withdrawn is assessable in the same income year that it would be assessed in if the farmer did not qualify for the exceptional circumstances concession and withdrew the deposit just after the 12-month period had expired. For this reason, apart from a timing effect, there is no cost to revenue. After all, the bill only affects farmers who have had their deposits in the bank for less than 12 months. The members for Fraser and Blaxland referred to Labor's drought plan, but the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry stated the situation very clearly in question time today. It is not just a case of Labor being an apologist for state Labor governments; many farmers would get very little under the Labor package—at least, not yet. The coalition introduced interim assistance and predictive modelling, and the Labor announcement was two months after the government's announcement, so it was a question of too little, too late.The member for Riverina, in a particularly thought-provoking contribution, mentioned, as she often does, the problems of small business. She is a keen advocate in her electorate for small business operators, and all of us in this place know that small business is the engine room of the Australian economy. The member for Riverina suggested that the provisions should be extended to small businesses. I want to point out to the honourable member that the government does have other ways of compensating the rest of the community. I refer to the Centrelink arrangements which establish Drought Force, a Work for the Dole type program. It also allows job seekers access to job seeker training and allows employees facing retrenchment access to job matching services. The point I want to make is that the government does have a broad range of initiatives to assist those in drought affected Australia and does appreciate the important contribution they have made to Australia's national prosperity. I think there is a broad consensus in Australia that those people in rural Australia who work so hard to make Australia the wonderful country that it is should be assisted by the nation as a whole in these times of adversity.The current drought is having an immense impact on rural Australia. It is one of the most severe in the last 100 years. In recognition of the particular severity and extent of the drought, the government has decided that, in conjunction with a number of other comprehensive measures, it will amend the taxation laws to allow farmers in exceptional circumstances declared areas to access their farm management deposits without having to wait 12 months. I am therefore hopeful that the government will receive the support of the House, given that the relaxation of the 12-month requirement will benefit farmers in exceptional circumstances declared areas. Members on both sides do appear to be supporting the bill. The FMD scheme allows eligible primary producers to set aside pre-tax income in profitable years to establish cash reserves to help meet costs in low-income years. FMDs complement other risk management strategies available to primary producers, such as developing fodder and water reserves, financial planning and diversifying their production systems. Furthermore, minor amendments will also be made to the taxation laws to enhance the flexibility and operation of the FMD scheme. This is one of the initiatives announced by the Prime Minister on 27 November this year which are designed to assist rural communities to cope with the current drought. The initiatives provide additional funding to meet a number of concerns, including cash flow for farmers, pest control, environmental protection and community support for struggling farmers. The amendments will help farmers manage the cash flow impact of the drought and build on the significant funding already provided by the Commonwealth in managing the drought. In addition, the government will also streamline consideration of advice on exceptional circumstances applications to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in the coming weeks. This is a very important initiative of the Howard government. The government appreciates the backing of both sides of the House. I commend this bill to the chamber.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.10032Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (8.28 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills10032R147810032Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Mr Abbott:That this bill be now read a second time.20:29:0010032McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition will be opposing the second reading motion. We do not believe the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 is necessary. Insofar as it is pushed, we will be moving amendments in the committee stage to reduce from 12 months to six months the period of exemption the government proposes with respect to the right of casual employees to pursue unfair dismissal actions. That is the primary issue in this bill. I will explain the reasoning for the opposition's position. Essentially, our reasoning relates to a concern regarding the growing extent of insecure employment in our community, and casual employment makes up a substantial bulk of that insecure employment. Essentially, the government's approach is a one-sided approach of scapegoating employees—and, when we are talking about casual employees, we are talking about probably the most marginalised and vulnerable employees in the community—and claiming that the mere fact that they have rights is an impediment to employment and an explanation for lower rates of permanent employment.We say that, if you are taking away rights from a citizen—in particular, from those who are the most marginalised and vulnerable—you have to do so with good reason. The government have not made out their case. In taking this approach of victimising or scapegoating these vulnerable employees, they are failing to address a very concerning trend in our work force—that is, the extent of casualisation or insecure employment generally. In terms of casualisation, figures suggest that about one-third of the Australian work force are casual employees. Casual employees do not have the rights of traditional employees, which I will refer to in a second. To give an indication of the emerging trends: in the last decade, 87 per cent of new jobs paid less than $26,000 a year and half of those paid less than $15,600 per year. That is less than the minimum wage, which suggests that a substantial number of the jobs created are casual or at least part time; they are certainly less than full time. It is very difficult to get a precise handle on what is happening, partly because the government has declined to conduct an Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey. The last one was undertaken in 1995. We say it is imperative to do that, because the emerging trends are concerning trends. You have to bear in mind that the whole work force seems to be fragmented into two tiers. In the first tier are those persons who have special skills, training or qualifications. They are engaged as a core work force. Surrounding that is a second tier, a peripheral work force. That peripheral work force is growing—it is now about one-third of the Australian work force—but those in it are engaged as and when required to meet peak demands of the market or seasonal factors, as has always been the case with respect to casual employees. That is a very transient or short-term underemployed work force.Insofar as that represents one-third of the work force—and, from all indications, a growing portion of it—it is significant for two reasons. The first is from the point of view of what it indicates about the distribution of wealth and opportunity in our community. From one perspective, the wellbeing of people in this peripheral work force is quite irrelevant to the economic wellbeing of the nation—that is, we could have a very successful economy with these people who exist in this peripheral work force not travelling well, being underemployed and having incomes of less than $15,600 a year. But, if you are looking at it from the point of view of the long-term liveability of the society—aside from the morality that applies to individuals in that category—and if you are looking at it from the point of view of the society we want to create, you are looking at a society that is already very unequal in terms of access to resources and opportunities and which is going to become increasingly unequal.To make that proposition is simply to state the obvious: if you are a casual employee or an otherwise insecure employee on a fixed term engagement, you are not going to get a car loan let alone a housing loan and it is most unlikely that you are going to have access to superannuation. When you are looking at how our society is emerging, if you do not have the opportunity to grab a foothold on the exponentially increasing housing property market, you are going to be left behind. Not only are you going to be left behind; your kids also are going to be left behind. On the trend of the work force, intergenerational poverty is staring us in the face. One-third of the work force is now in this category. I would accept and concede that a portion of that one-third in casual employment would probably be in second jobs, that they would probably be in households where there is a primary income earner. Nonetheless, a significant portion would be there as the sole income earner. They will not have access to the property market, nor will their children. If we sit down and look at this trend now, we have an opportunity to say, `We can do something about it.' That is the first thing, which is from the point of view of the society we want.The second thing is from the point of view of the future economy that we want. I think we realise here in Australia that there is a fundamental difference between the opposition and the government on this point: the opposition continually says that it wants a high-skilled, high-paid work force but, if you look at the trends in the workplace, the government, at least for this peripheral tier, is quite happy to see a low-skilled, low-paid work force. When casual employees are in this peripheral tier, it is not in the interests of the employer to provide a lot of resources for training and upskilling, encouraging skills enhancement, because they are on the periphery. It is just silly from the point of view of an employer to devote resources to people who are a transient work force. We are looking at a situation where a third of the work force is not being provided with the skills that are required for us to sustain an ongoing, productive economy. Obviously, if in any endeavour a third of your work force—and that is what is suggested on the basis of the current figures—is not receiving that necessary training and upskilling, you are putting in place an impediment to the future wellbeing of your nation. For the purposes of scene setting, I would like to acknowledge those points. They are vitally important to a consideration of this issue. Why? Because this bill will fundamentally, in itself, encourage employers to engage casual employees for a period of 12 months rather than for a shorter period. I think an analysis of the propositions that I have put to date would suggest that it is in everyone's interests—clearly, the individuals, the society and the economy—for us to sit down and look at what we can do to encourage employers to engage employees on a permanent basis, not on a casual or part-time basis.From the point of view of individuals, we have seen what has occurred. A well-known case recently was the metals casuals case of 2000. In that case, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission received evidence from a number of casual employees—as well as from economists—describing the effect of this insecure employment on their lives, their families' lives and their wellbeing. Clearly, in many instances they are engaged by the hour. They are there at 20 minutes to nine at night and they do not know whether they are going to be there at 10 o'clock. They cannot phone up to tell their kids when they are going to be home. It is at the whim of the boss, according to the demands of the workplace. They do not get annual holidays, long service leave or, most likely, superannuation.83QSchultz, Alby, MPMr Schultz—They get a casual loading.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—They cannot acquire property. They get very basic training at best. An interjection was made that they receive a casual loading. Yes, they get a casual loading, but it seems that that casual loading is itself not a disincentive to employing casual labour. Indeed, if you look at casual rates of pay, including the loading, they are still below permanent rates of pay. Why? Because of the very nature of casual employees, they do not have the capacity to collectively bargain. They do not have that security in their position to say to the employer, `Hold on. We're going to have a stop-work meeting to consider our position. We're not happy regarding the terms and conditions of employment that have been offered to us.'83QSchultz, Alby, MPMr Schultz—That's nonsense, and you know it.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The member for Hume again interjects.83QSchultz, Alby, MPMr Schultz—I know, because I have worked there and you haven't.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The figures speak for themselves. If you look at the rates of pay for casual employees as against those for permanent employees in industries, even considering the loading, their rates of pay are still below those that permanent employees are able to secure. Because permanent employees have the security, they have the ability to negotiate and they have secured those benefits. I say to the member for Hume and to the House that casuals are on the whole very marginalised and vulnerable employees. We cannot forget that, because what are we doing in debating this bill? The debate is about taking away a fundamental Australian right—the right to a fair go before you lose your livelihood. That is something we should be reluctant to do to any Australian, particularly those who are the most marginalised and vulnerable of Australians.Again, what is our concern? Our concern is the very effect that it has on the society that we want to be and on the economy that we want to have, but in terms of the consequences of trying to get a rule, or at least a culture, in Australian workplaces for someone who has been a casual employee engaged on a regular and systematic basis with an expectation of ongoing employment. I am not talking about a situation such as fruit picking where someone may be involved in a rotating situation for a period of seven or nine months, with no expectation of ongoing employment in an establishment. I am talking about a situation where someone is employed on a regular and systematic basis for a period of six months with an expectation that that relationship is going to continue. The metals casuals case found that it was fair and reasonable that there be a presumption that those people be offered permanent employment. Bob Herbert, the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, whom I have a lot of time for—I think he is a particularly balanced person, representing his industry group more effectively than any other organisation because of the balance that he brings—said in respect of the decision in that case: There has been no adjustment to casual employment for 26 years. Certainly, there will be some murmurs among employers over the increased loading rates—I interpose and note the member for Hume's previous interjection—but, in reality the AIRC ruling simply brings casuals to roughly the same pay and condition levels as their full-time colleagues.I put that quote from Bob Herbert of the Australian Industry Group to my learned friend who interjected earlier. It is recognition that they were in a disadvantaged bargaining position. That is an industry group saying, `A six-month tour and this additional loading was an appropriate thing to aim for.' Indeed, that is what we say.Now we come to the question of how we came to be debating this bill. We came to be debating this bill as the result of the decision of the full court of the Federal Court of Australia in Hamzy v. Tricon International Restaurants trading as KFC. In that decision, the full court of the Federal Court of Australia held that a 12-month exemption from the right of employees to seek remedy for unfair dismissal was not consistent with that provision of the act which enabled the minister to make regulations exempting employees from those benefits or that right if they were engaged on a casual basis for a short period of time. The Federal Court said 12 months was not a short period of time. In presenting their case—and this is significant—the government went into evidence using this argument that they persist with. It is an argument we will be prepared to engage in, to analyse the substance of it. I will do the best I can to look at it in the time available. The court specifically rejected evidence presented by the government that unfair dismissal laws are an impediment to employment. The court specifically rejected evidence presented by the chief government witness, Professor Mark Wooden, a research fellow of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, known as the Melbourne Institute. I ask the House to recognise the name of the Melbourne Institute. The court specifically rejected that evidence. Indeed, the full court of the Federal Court said:It seems unfortunate that nobody has investigated whether there is any relationship between unfair dismissal legislation and employment growth. There has been much assertion on this topic during recent years, but apparently no effort to ascertain the factual situation.The court suggested how that could be done. Effectively, since about 1983, some federal awards have had protections against unfair dismissal. The court said, `Why hasn't a comparison been done of those industries or employers covered by awards that have that benefit for employees with those industries where there is no similar benefit, looking at employment trends in that sector?' No-one has done that.In answer to a question on notice that I asked on 14 October—but that was answered on 3 December—the minister said that he took on board the comments of the Federal Court of Australia in Hamzy's case, asking why someone had not looked at this effectively. The minister said in his reply to me, `We asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics to look at the issue. They said that they would have impediments to using empirical data for the purpose and they suggested a survey approach.' The minister's answer refers to the 2002 Yellow Pages Small Business Index Survey. It then refers to a further study, done through the Melbourne Institute, which reported on 29 October 2002. I want to spend some time discussing that report, because we think the findings of it are flawed and that they were the result of a methodology that itself was flawed. This is of concern because we are talking about rights.It must be said that Mr Harding, Assistant Director of the Melbourne Institute, acknowledged that there had been two recent surveys. One was the July 2002 Yellow Pages small business questionnaire. That survey indicated that 5.6 per cent of firms mentioned that the following were a barrier to hiring new staff: employment conditions, unfair dismissal, industrial relations and safety and health. Grouped together, they make 5.6 per cent, so we would assume that unfair dismissal itself, being a factor in that grouping, would be less than 5.6 per cent. That would be consistent with an earlier survey reported by Don Harding, the 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey, which referred to only 1.4 per cent of respondents mentioning unfair dismissal laws as a discrete impediment to taking on new employees. Mr Harding said, `We need to prompt employers on this issue to get their response.' With respect to Mr Harding, I submit that the prompting went further than was reasonably fair to get an accurate outcome of the views of employers. For instance, in the interviews conducted with businesses of fewer than 200 employees, I recall that there was an instruction to an interviewer trying to quantify the cost of complying with unfair dismissal laws. The instruction to the interviewer read: If response is that it is hard to quantify costs prompt by asking for best estimate. If response is that costs vary from year to year ask for a cost in best year and cost in worst year and take midpoint. If a range is given code midpoint of the range.These are very broad prompts. Indeed, if you look at the figures obtained, you will see that the outcomes reflect such broad prompts. For instance, if you take the finance industry, one of the industries specifically examined, the businesses surveyed are broken up into groupings based on the number of employees: one to five, six to 10, 11 to 20, 21 to 50, 51 to 100 and 100 plus. You would assume, if that methodology were accurate, that there would be a consistency through those figures, perhaps even a sliding scale. But, when you look at them, they bounce around all over the shop. For instance, using that methodology it was found that, for businesses with one to five employees, the average cost is $45 per employee; with six to 10 employees, the average cost is $755 per employee; with 11 to 20 employees, the average cost is $0 per employee; with 21 to 50, the average cost is $348 per employee; with 51 to 100, the cost is $17 per employee; and with more than 100 employees, the average cost is $8 per employee. There is not even a sliding scale there. I suppose you would assume that the bigger the establishment, perhaps, the lower the cost. But, if you look at that trend, they bounce around throughout those ranges. Indeed, when looking at industries as a whole, the cost for an employer in respect of the wholesale industry is $44 and the cost in respect of the accommodation industry is $1,087. There is no logic in these figures. If you look at the prompt that I have indicated pushed these responses, you can see why there is such a wide deviation. Overall, the figure per employee went from a cost of $30,000 in one response to zero in others. Despite the massive variation, Mr Harding averaged out, by some miraculous calculation—adding them all together in an omelette and picking out a potato—the figure of $296 per employee then multiplied this by the number of employees and came up with the cost to the community of $1.3 billion. With respect, that is poor research. What are the consequences of that research? The research is used as justification for taking away important rights. Mr Harding recognised those rights in his report. On page 13 he says:The central purpose of the UFD laws—unfair dismissal laws—are to encourage firms to engage in fair, and transparent human resource management procedures when dealing with workers whose performance is unsatisfactory. That is not something that we, in the 21st century, would think is undesirable. He goes on to say:It is clear from the data that the UFD laws have caused firms to implement the two main practices that are considered to be part of good human resource management of poor performers namely, provide a warning, and provide an opportunity to respond ...He refers to a table and then continues:It is also clear that the UFD laws have encouraged firms to provide workers who are about to be dismissed with reasons ...He refers to another table and then says: something that is widely viewed as central to fairness.And it is: we are talking about the fundamental concept of a fair go all round. We are talking about taking away from very marginalised and vulnerable workers this concept of a fair go and their access to the right for a fair go. We would want to do this on figures, and I surmise that there is no way that Mr Harding will ever be appearing in a court of law to face cross-examination on his methodology nor on the figures obtained through that methodology. They just do not substantiate the propositions that the government has advanced. In fairness to the media, their analysis of the document came up with that comment. In summary, on the issue of exempting casual employees, fundamentally you are encouraging employers, by the very nature of this legislation, to keep people on as casuals for 12 months rather than make them permanent at an earlier period, namely six months. That is essentially the proposition that we are advancing. There are two other issues that I will touch on briefly. The first is the proposed exemption of employees on a fixed term basis. There have been decisions on this matter in the Federal Court of Australia, and as a result we are content not to oppose that exemption. The Federal Court has applied, we believe, practical reasoning. If there is a fixed term arrangement and that arrangement itself provides for a method of dismissal or termination of the engagement, the court has been prepared to say that it is not a fixed term arrangement but that it is an ongoing employment arrangement. On the basis of those authorities, we are prepared to accept that proposition. The other issue, which we will be opposing, is the proposition to lock in and index court filing fees. We are very concerned by the locking in of court filing fees and suspect that the government wants this to be an impediment to people bringing claims. The fact that someone cannot afford a filing fee is no measure of whether the claim is worthy. We believe that the appropriate way of imposing a filing fee is by way of regulation so that parliament can review that regulation and disallow it if they regard the filing fee as inappropriate. But to entrench it and index it, we believe, is an exceptional thing to do. From our research, there is no precedent for that occurring. Court filing fees are universally set by regulation not by legislation, and there is no reason to depart from that. We are trying to come up with a balance but we think the government has gone too far. (Time expired)20:59:0010037Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—What we hear from the Labor Party is always predictable. From the time you walk into this place you know that they are going to come up with the same old diatribe centred on their ideological view of small business. The member for Barton's contribution was no exception to the rule. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 was introduced into the parliament on 20 February 2002. The bill was referred to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee on 19 March 2002. The committee received 30 submissions in relation to the five bills before it, including this bill, and held public hearings on 2 and 3 May 2002 in Melbourne. The committee reported on this bill on 15 May 2002. This bill will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to restore to business broad protection from termination of employment claims brought by short-term casual employees. I know a little bit about that, because I have been on both sides of the fence: I have undertaken short-term casual work and I have employed short-term casuals. I will come to that later. The bill will also move provisions imposing a filing fee for dismissal applications from the regulations into the act and will provide for the fee to be indexed annually in line with the CPI. The bill is aimed at assisting those businesses that rely heavily on the use of casual labour to continue to operate smoothly without fear of falling foul of the unfair dismissal laws. Adding more risk and uncertainty to the employment of casuals will have a detrimental effect on employment. There is absolutely no question about it. Businesses, especially small businesses, should not be deterred further from engaging staff, especially casual staff. It brings to mind a number of conversations that I have had not only with small business people in my electorate but also with others that I have dealt with in the past in my capacity as an employer working for a large export establishment and, prior to that, as a casual. When the unfair dismissal laws were first brought in, people were telling me about incidents that occurred in their businesses with regard to unfair dismissal claims that had been brought against them and how the system was being manipulated. On a couple of occasions some business people who employed between two and 10 employees had had vexatious claims made successfully against them. One employer told me that he had warned one of his employees about the employee's constant use of marijuana in his employment and about what it was doing to him in terms of putting him at risk regarding safety issues in the plant and in the workplace. Despite his warning this employee on a number of occasions and finally finding a quantity of marijuana in the employee's locker and dismissing him, he faced the consequences of the unfair dismissal laws. He paid out a significant amount of money and had to re-employ the person. As a follow-on this employer made a deliberate decision to restrict the number of outsiders in his business and to employ as many family members as he could in the interests of protecting his business and keeping it viable. That is an example of the harsh reality of small business and how unfair dismissal laws create problems for small business in the real world. I know that that is difficult for people like the member for Barton to understand, being a person with a legal background and coming out of the trade union movement. I have been employed as a casual and as a full-time employee and I have worked as a person hiring others, in a very similar situation. I can understand why he is out of touch with reality and, more importantly, why the ALP has this fixation on subjecting small business to unfair impositions. Businesses, particularly small businesses, should not be deterred from further engaging staff, especially casual staff. These staff help employers to meet the peaks and troughs that business demands, and that is the very point I am making. This government is about creating jobs, and that is the principal aim of this bill. A survey of small businesses issued by the Society of Certified Practicing Accountants in March this year showed that 42 per cent of small businesses did not feel that they were confident that they knew how to dismiss staff in line with the unfair dismissal laws. If they contact me, I can certainly give them some good information in relation to that. Yet 76 per cent of CPAs believed that small business did not understand the laws. The survey results confirm that understanding. The figures highlight the onerous complexity of the laws, with 62 per cent of small business and 81 per cent of accountants believing that the unfair dismissal laws require them to follow a complex process. The complexities of the law would be added to if business had to extend the minefield of unfair dismissal laws to short-term casual employees. This was a description used by the CEO of the Small Business Clinic in an advice column in the Daily Telegraph on 25 June 2002. There are also technical reasons for the introduction of the bill. The bill will exclude casual employees from making claims for unfair dismissal or unlawful termination unless they have been engaged with a particular employer on a regular and systematic basis for 12 months and have a reasonable expectation of continuing employment with the same employer. That will vary from industry to industry. In the Hamzy v. Tricon International Restaurants decision on 16 November 2001, which the member for Barton referred to, the full Federal Court declared regulations that had the same effect to be invalid. The issue in the Hamzy case was whether the exclusion of short-term casual employees from federal unfair dismissal laws was valid on highly technical legal grounds. The substance of the regulations was not at issue. The regulations excluded short-term casual employees from accessing termination of employment remedies unless they had been working for the employer on a regular and systematic basis for 12 months and had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment with the same employer. The full Federal Court said that they were not valid on a technicality. The Hamzy case was decided on a technicality—that is, the regulations went further than was permitted by the regulation making power in the act. Replacement regulations were put in place as soon as possible—in fact, from 7 December 2001—after the Hamzy decision, and they now operate. All the bill is seeking to do is restore the law in relation to short-term casuals to what it was assumed to be before the full Federal Court's decision. The full Federal Court's decision was an interesting decision. It was in line with many of the decisions that come out of the courts from time to time which the general public get rather irate about because they are interfering in issues and making decisions based on ideological views in many instances—as is the ALP. In many instances the courts are making decisions on the basis of manipulating the laws of the land outside what the public perceive to be their interpretation of the law.I was interested to read the media release from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry on 14 March 2002, which was headed `12 month unfair dismissal exemption for casuals is essential for jobs'. This was a statement by Lyndon Rowe, the Acting Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He had this to say:Enacting the Government's legislation unamended does no more than retain the status quo that has applied for the past five years.Let it be said plainly—if the Senate forces any lesser period than a 12-month exclusion for casual employees then the Parliament will have increased, not decreased, the burden of unfair dismissal laws on employers.That would be a ridiculous outcome, given that the unfair dismissal debate should be about reducing the problems that these laws create for fair-minded employers.The press release talks about the watering down of the five-year-old law and what it will do. It says:For the past five years an employer could employ a casual and not be at risk of a federal unfair dismissal claim during the first 12 months of employment.Quite correctly, it goes on to say:The Government and the Parliament, not the courts, make public policy on unfair dismissal laws. Court decisions are not a substitute for balanced public policy on an issue as important to jobs as unfair dismissal laws.I know the mainstream community would agree wholeheartedly on that in relation to court decisions affecting not only employment but, more importantly, various other issues in the community on which the courts have come under attack in the last 12 to 18 months. The press release ends by saying:The 12-month exclusion is part of an established policy balance in unfair dismissal laws. For the past five years the Senate did not disallow this law, contained in regulations.I think that pretty well sums it up.On the issue of the follow-on from the Federal Court's decision, it is interesting that the ALP does not seem to grasp the situation that applies out in the real world, which is this: in order for a worker to be sacked, they have to have a job. The ALP should be concerned with job creation measures, not measures that add to the uncertainty of the unfair dismissal laws or that contribute to the idea that they are a minefield. The ALP obviously has no commitment to the wellbeing of small business—and I made reference to that before. The ALP is demonstrating a lack of understanding of small business and the need for flexibility to cater for legitimate business needs. I think that is the crux of the matter. This is clear from the comments of Labor, best summed up by Kim Beazley's comments in an interview with Maxine McKew on Lateline on 4 December 1996. He said that unfair dismissal:... in the end has got nothing to do with small business—nothing to do with youth unemployment ...That sums it up, as I said, very succinctly.For over 10 years the casual exclusion has operated. It operated under Labor when the period in the exemption was six months. It has been a 12-month exemption since 1996. Business has operated on the basis that it can engage short-term casuals without invoking the complexity of the unfair dismissal laws over that period. The bill merely regularises a situation that changed because of a legal technicality. It is not about any alleged exploitation of casuals. It is returning to a situation that has prevailed for years. Employers have traditionally used short-term casuals to balance the peaks and troughs in workloads, especially where there is seasonal employment. ABS data supports this conclusion. Around one-third of all casuals do not work regular hours. Further, 44 per cent of casuals described their working pattern as casual relief work. That is absolutely right. The Australian Hotels Association had something to say with regard to unfair dismissal laws. And why wouldn't they be concerned about it? They are concerned about it because they employ more than 250,000 Australians in their industry. More importantly, they employ an enormous number of young people, who work on a casual basis to subsidise their income when they are going through university. Rural and regional hoteliers employ a number of people who are using casual work in hotels and in clubs to subsidise their full-time working conditions outside the home, to get those little extras, to add to the small luxuries of life that they enjoy from time to time.As I said earlier, this nonsense—words about insecure employment, rights being taken away from individuals, the casualisation of the work force, the reference to special skills and training, the peripheral work force, the distribution of wealth in the work force and, finally, intergenerational poverty—used as an argument against the unfair dismissal laws, is just another indication of how the Australian Labor Party have never been in the position of balancing a profit and loss sheet in a small business or of lining up at the gate or at a packing shed, like I have, to undertake casual work. I might add that I have been paid reasonably well for casual work, except on piecework, where you had to justify the amount of money you got by the poundage or volume of the commodity that you had picked or packed on a particular day. It was not that bad in terms of the payment, because you were subsidised through the casual loading for holidays and normal award employment conditions.There always was and always will be a very real desire by people who are in the casual work force, if they want to make something of themselves in life and make themselves totally self-sufficient, to continue to go to a particular industry organisation and work as a casual in the hope that, at some stage or another in their lifetime, they will be able to pick up a permanent job. They understand that. They do not have to have regulations from politicians to make them understand that. This is no reflection on my parliamentary colleagues, a significant number of whom, on both sides of the House, have come out of the legal profession but people do not like politicians who come from that sort of background telling them, as casual, ordinary, working battlers out there in the Australian community, how they should be acting as casuals in the work force. More importantly, those who are honest—and that is the bulk of them—do not go into the casual work force to make use of and abuse unfair dismissal laws. Most of them do not use them. It is only the slackers, as I call them, who want to make a quick buck and who have the handout mentality that we have in the community today who abuse the unfair dismissal laws.I take great delight in having the opportunity to speak on this particular bill here tonight because I think the government, by introducing this sort of bill into this House, is going in the right direction in terms of making sure that we do have and continue to have low unemployment in this country. I can understand why the Labor Party are out in the wilderness: because they do not understand what is happening out there in the real world. It does not matter whether you are talking about unfair dismissal laws or any other issue in the mainstream community: the mainstream community knows they have nothing to offer and knows that the Labor Party are obstructing us in everything that they do. All the community is looking for from the Australian Labor Party is some assistance to enhance the good work being done by the coalition in reducing unemployment rates and making employers feel safe and secure in their role of employing people. (Time expired)21:19:0010040George, Jennie, MPMs GEORGEJH5ThrosbyALP00— The Howard government and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations have determined that they are going to continue to persist with denying certain categories of Australian citizens the kind of recourse to legal remedies that the average person in the community would believe in as part of the notion of a fair go all round. I spoke earlier this year on the so-called `fair' dismissal bill, and tonight I want to make some remarks about the minister's Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002. Let me begin by saying that what the minister describes as being fair is quite contrary to the commonly accepted notion of fairness in Australian communities. In the earlier bill, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 [No. 2], the minister wanted us to believe that fair dismissal somehow meant depriving a whole class of employees of any recourse under law against harsh, unjust and unreasonable grounds for termination. That exclusion was to apply to anyone who, by chance, happened to work in a business of less than 20 employees. Now we are being asked to stretch our minds to believe that fairness will now mean, if the minister has his way, that termination without legal remedy for unfair dismissal could occur in a situation where a particular employment relationship existed—that is, where the short-term employment, as defined by the minister's bill, is less than 12 months. So we see a second attempt to deprive Australian citizens of recourse to legal remedies. I think it runs very much against the fundamental tenets of our legal system in Australia, which historically has been predicated on the notion that all Australian citizens are equal before the law. The battlers understand quite clearly the implications of the minister's doublespeak. They see it as being of Orwellian proportions. How is it fair, in any person's language, to deny workers who happen to work in a small business recourse against unfair dismissal? To deny to those casual employees who have an employment relationship of less than 12 months any recourse under the law is really beyond me.What the minister fails to appreciate is that the import of this bill would have the most negative consequences on the most vulnerable workers in our community. It places those who are precariously employed, often in small business and often non-unionised, in the most vulnerable of positions. Of course, if the minister had his way we would see a double whammy, because there is, as we all know, a very high correlation between casual employment and small business. So it would be a case of double jeopardy for many of those workers who happened to be casual and in small business if this government were to have its way. We have to commend the efforts of those in the other chamber who over the years have maintained the line that the issue of unfair dismissal has to be treated on the basis of the principle of a fair go all round.Back in 1995 the government's AWIRS survey reported that small business employed a higher proportion of casuals than all other workplaces—21 per cent of small businesses compared to 17 per cent of all workplaces. As we know, and as others have referred to in the debate on this bill, under the Howard government we have seen an acceleration of the trend to casualisation. Precarious employment is growing astronomically and job insecurity is rampant in our community. It is difficult to be precise about the exact number of casual workers who would be affected by the scope of this proposed exclusion, but a large number of people out of the two million currently casually employed would suffer the negative impacts of the government's proposals. It should be of concern to everybody in this chamber that Australia has one of the highest rates of casual and precarious employment of any developed OECD nation. The most recent figures I have seen show that the number of casual employees has grown from around 16 per cent in 1984 to anywhere up to the 30 per cent mark today.I know from my own experience that a significantly larger proportion of women than men are employed as casuals. About 60 per cent of all casual workers are women. So it is this group of very vulnerable workers, predominantly women, who will bear the negative impacts of this bill. The intent of the bill is to deny the so-called short-term casuals access to federal unfair termination remedies. I think it is a terrible tragedy that this government is hell-bent on winding back the scope of federal unfair termination laws introduced under the Keating government back in 1993. I think it is to the great credit of the former Labor government and the efforts then of the member for Kingsford-Smith that working people, especially the most vulnerable, had protection at the federal level under a near universal regime regulating wrongful and unfair dismissal. It is true that, in accordance with the International Labour Organisation convention at the time, exclusion applied to workers engaged on what was then described as a `casual basis for a short period'. As we know, and as the member for Barton has pointed out in the debate on this bill, the 1996 changes to the regulations, which increased from six months to 12 months the period of engagement before redress could be sought, came to a head in the Hamzy case. The challenge to the validity of the regulations was upheld by the full Federal Court decision back in November 2001, but again the minister moved quickly to restore the exclusion. In effect, he is now seeking to have those regulations incorporated into the act itself.What are the arguments that are advanced in favour of this proposition? We heard a lot in the earlier debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 [No. 2] that if we were only to carry the bill then nirvana would appear and there would be all these new jobs created. That is a great hypothesis but one built on no substantial body of evidence—which even the recent decisions of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission have made very clear. Then we were told that the figure was 52,000 jobs. At least in the case of this bill the minister recognises that employment-creating arguments would be absolutely untenable and unsustainable and so, to his credit, he has not used them. He cannot use them because, even when the Keating government introduced its reforms back in 1993, the reforms never acted as a brake on the growth in casual employment. The regulation of wrongful dismissal in the federal jurisdiction has never acted as a brake on employment growth.As I said earlier, I think the real dilemma that we are facing is how we, as a nation and as a community, deal with the increased casualisation that is feeding the growing insecurity. If anything, the current exclusion of casual employees—that is, those who have been working for a particular employer for less than 12 months—is potentially open to be used in a manner which would further accelerate casualisation and precarious employment. It would open the door to the possibility of unscrupulous employers churning staff through their enterprises as a means of circumventing access to remedies for unfair dismissal.There is a range of views as to why casual employment is growing at such a fast rate in our nation. There is no doubt in my mind that the whole tenor of the industrial relations changes—in particular, the stripping back of the awards system and the deregulation that we have seen both in the labour market and in the laws governing the employment relationship—has led to this very serious situation.An analysis done by Mark Woden has shown there has in fact been a marked growth in the incidence of casual employment at new workplaces and firms. Mr Woden did not draw any specific conclusion as to why this was occurring, but let me put it to you that the accelerated growth in the casualisation of new workplaces and firms is the result of employers' deliberate decisions to circumvent their employees' access to unfair dismissal jurisdiction and to avoid the payment of many existing entitlements that apply to permanent employees. If this bill were to see the light of day, it would provide a strong incentive to many employers to churn and to continue to employ casuals for less than honourable reasons. In his second reading speech, the minister argued: The exclusion ensures that businesses have the flexibility they need to hire short-term casuals without worrying about dismissal proceedings if it turns out that the employee is not needed permanently.If that were a genuine concern, employers would be able to use the probationary period exclusion as their defence. What is the defence for casual employees in the 12-month period? There is none at all if this bill is not rejected. There is no balance. I was sorry to hear some of the comments made by the member for Hume when he argued that the ALP are out of touch with the realities of life for people in the small business sector. I do not think we are; I think we are making conscious efforts to address the needs of the small business sector. We had a range of very constructive amendments to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002, which, regrettably, the minister has chosen to reject. You cannot have flexibility just at the employer's whim without understanding that, in doing so, you are denying rights to a whole group of Australian citizens who deserve the widest possible protections. There is no balance in this bill. While I and the Labor Party accept the notion of probationary periods, in our view it is unjust for Australian laws to be passed that provide flexibility and protection to employers at the expense of their employees, which is precisely what this bill seeks to do. Let me quote the minister's own words: After the court decision, as an interim measure, the Government made replacement regulations giving employers the widest protection possible within the parameters of the Hamzy decision.The minister is unashamedly on the public record saying that the regulations were made to give `employers the widest protection possible within the parameters of the Hamzy decision'. He goes on to argue that the bill that he has brought to this House validates the operation of regulations found invalid by the Federal Court.The member for Barton has well explained Labor's amendments to this bill. In essence, the amendments provide for a maximum period of exclusion of six months or for a lesser period of exclusion that is contained in an award or certified agreement. This position is totally consistent with previous practice under a Labor government. In the years of that practice, the sky did not fall in and the laws did not operate in any way to curtail the growth and flexibility that short-term casual employment provides.Of course, the ability of employees to negotiate a lesser period of exclusion would provide unions with an opportunity and incentive to increase their coverage among casual workers by negotiating more favourable conditions for them. A strong argument can be advanced that, in view of employment trends—the growth in casual employment and the fact that workers continue to be classified as casuals long after they should have been deemed permanent—they ought to have the same rights as all other employees.Historically, industrial relations practice has defined casual employment as employment that is informal, irregular and uncertain. A study has confirmed today that casual employment is no longer informal or irregular, but it certainly continues to be uncertain. A 1997 ABS report indicated that one-third of all casuals continue to be employed as casuals beyond a 12-month period. The same survey indicated that almost 50 per cent of casual employees surveyed in the study were in jobs that had lasted over two years, but they were still considered to be casual employees. `Long-term casuals' is a big misnomer that is creeping into the lexicon; you are casual because you are there on an informal, irregular basis, as historically has been the practice. Anyone who continues to be casually employed beyond a 12-month period is being employed in a way that circumvents the kinds of benefits and protection that come with permanent employment.The end point of this argument could well be that you remove any casual exclusion on the basis that a three-month probationary period should apply to all. But, on balance, Labor's amendments to this bill are a midway point—that is, that the maximum period of exclusion be six months while at the same time providing the scope for improvements to the six-month exclusion through negotiated outcomes either through the award system or through collective bargaining or certified agreements.I am hoping that the minister will give consideration to the constructive suggestions that have been advanced by the shadow minister, the member for Barton, although I fear that the minister's agenda is driven more by rhetoric and ideology than it is by real issues that are applied to real people. I do not think there is anything fair about any of the proposals and bills that have come before this House that go to the issue of the rights of employees who are faced with unfair or unjust termination. The Australian community believes in a fair go all round. Regrettably, on every occasion that this issue has been debated, the minister's approach has been driven much more by the political agenda than by an agenda that enshrines the notion of a fair go all round and balances the legitimate interests of employers with the legitimate rights of people who work for those employers. In conclusion, I urge the government to give serious consideration to the arguments advanced by the member for Barton on behalf of the Labor Party. I ask the minister to recognise that this government's repeated efforts to deny rights of equality before the law to Australian working people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and who are precariously employed, is not a principle that is accepted by the Australian community at large.21:38:0010044Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—It is with pleasure I rise tonight to speak to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002. Labor's disgraceful record on these workplace relations measures shows its lack of policy when it comes to creating jobs and supporting small business. Creating jobs and supporting small business are the principal aims of this bill. The bill will restore to businesses broad protection from termination of employment claims brought by short-term casual employees. It will also move provisions imposing a filing fee for dismissal applications from the regulations into the act and provide for the fee to be indexed annually in line with the consumer price index.The bill is aimed at assisting those businesses that rely heavily on the use of casual labour, including tourism businesses in Port Stephens, Dungog, Gloucester and the Great Lakes areas. The bill will assist those businesses to continue to operate smoothly without fear of falling foul of the unfair dismissal laws. Adding more risks and uncertainty to employment, especially for casuals, will have a detrimental effect on employment. Businesses, especially small businesses, should not be deterred further from engaging staff, especially casual staff. These staff help employers meet the peaks and troughs of business demands. Put plainly: this government is about creating jobs. Yet despite all those commonsense and good policy reasons, the ALP is still saying no to helping small business on this legislation. We all know that small business is like the engine room of the economy. There are over one million small businesses in this country, and this is where around 80 per cent of jobs growth in Australia has been created.By refusing to support these measures under fair termination, Labor is once again failing to support small business. The ALP's record—or lack of a record—for helping small business is an utter disgrace. During the 13 years of Labor, small business was hit with the worst economic recession since the Great Depression; record small business interest rates of over 20 per cent; high inflation; massive government borrowing and national debt, which accumulated to $96 billion in Labor's last year of office; record unemployment, peaking at 11.2 per cent when Kim Beazley was employment minister; record business related bankruptcies; and a $10.3 billion deficit left by then finance minister, Kim Beazley. Small business was left with an industrial relations system that was dominated by deals between big unions, big business and big bureaucracy; a centralised award system that restricted flexibility; and a job-destroying unfair dismissals law which, according to the Council of Small Business Associations, prevented small business from creating at least 50,000 extra jobs. Labor gave small business no protection in fair trading laws. Every time there was a call for fair trading reforms for small business, Labor commissioned yet another review. Labor had 17 reports, reviews or inquiries during its 13 years in government, but it did absolutely nothing. Labor consistently increased taxes. It introduced a capital gains tax, a fringe benefits tax, increased company tax, a compulsory superannuation tax, a compulsory training tax, automatically higher indirect taxes and higher fuel excise tax. Just look at what Labor did to provisional tax, which had an uplift factor of eight per cent in 1995-96. This adversely affected small business cash flows that should have been retained in the small business to assist with servicing of loans, increasing employment and/or supporting investment. Now we have a situation where the ALP has the chance to do the right thing by small business and really help them with unfair dismissal laws. But what is the ALP doing? It is doing absolutely nothing. It is not doing a single thing. It is not even giving the Australian public an alternative view on small business policy, because the fact is it does not have one. But even if the ALP does not want to listen to the views of this government on creating employment and helping small businesses, it should be listening to the business community, like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The chamber is the peak council of Australian business associations and represents over 350,000 businesses. Let us look at what the chamber had to say about unfair dismissals. In a media release in March this year, the chamber said:The Federal Government's legislation that continues to exempt casual employees from unfair dismissal laws during the first 12 months of employment must be enacted by the Parliament unamended.It would be wrong and opportunistic for the Federal Opposition to hide behind last year's Federal Court decision to water down the 12-month exclusion.Enacting the Government's legislation unamended does no more than retain the status quo that has applied for the past five years.Let it be said plainly-if the Senate forces any lesser period than a 12-month exclusion for casual employees then the Parliament will have increased, not decreased, the burden of unfair dismissal laws on employers.That would be a ridiculous outcome, given that the unfair dismissal debate should be about reducing the problems that these laws create for fair-minded employers.A watering down of the five year old law will add more risks and deterrents to the employment of staff, in this case casuals.In the interests of jobs, especially in service industries, that should not be allowed to happen. Such an outcome would fly in the face of public statements by the Labor Party that it is sympathetic to easing the impact on business of unfair dismissal laws.For the past five years an employer could employ a casual and not be at risk of a federal unfair dismissal claim during the first 12 months of employment.Those that advocate a less than 12 month exclusion need to explain clearly to all employers, including small businesses, why they intend to increase the right of casual employees to sue employers for unfair dismissal.Employers totally reject the argument that a less than 12-month exemption is required because of last year's Federal Court decision.The Federal Court decision invalidated the former regulation for technical legal reasons, not on policy grounds.The Government and the Parliament, not the courts, make public policy on unfair dismissal laws.Court decisions are not a substitute for balanced public policy on an issue as important to jobs as unfair dismissal laws.The 12-month exclusion is part of an established policy balance in unfair dismissal laws. For the past five years the Senate did not disallow this law, contained in regulations.There is no case whatsoever for the burden of federal unfair dismissal laws to be expanded.If the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry can see this, then why not the ALP? The plain and simple reason is: too few of them have ever been in small business, have ever had their own money on the line, have ever taken the risk, have ever extended themselves in this direction. This is just one example of business putting on the record what they think of unfair dismissal laws, particularly for casual workers. But let me tell you of another. A survey of small business issues undertaken by the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants in March this year showed that 42 per cent of small businesses did not feel confident that they knew how to dismiss staff in line with the unfair dismissal laws; yet 76 per cent of CPAs believed that small business does not understand the laws. The survey results confirm that understanding. The figures highlight the onerous complexity of the law. Sixty-two per cent of small businesses and 81 per cent of accountants believe that the unfair dismissal laws require them to follow a complex process. The complexities of the law would be added to if business had to extend the minefield of unfair dismissal laws to short-term casual employees. This description was used by the CEO of the Small Business Clinic in an advice column in the Daily Telegraph on 25 June 2002. So here you have two clear examples of businesses saying to the opposition, the Democrats and the Greens that unfair dismissal laws are not working and that there needs to be change. Small businesses are saying that to create jobs they need certainty when it comes to unfair dismissal laws. But Labor, the Democrats and the Greens still are not listening. Here is another example. The Australian Hotels Association said in a media release in November last year:Casual employment is at the cornerstone of flexible workplace practices and, for industries that experience significant peaks and lows, it is an essential tool in successful business management.The erosion of the flexibility of casual employment will simply hurt the chances of many young Australians to get their first break into the workforce. Industry uncertainty is the last thing we need at present. The only thing it can bring is job insecurity, while it will drive many employers to simply stop hiring casuals.The hospitality industry has already been hard hit by the global travel crisis and had our problems exacerbated by the collapse of Ansett and the general economic outlook.Employment is already down in our industry, which employs more than 250,000 Australians, and the effects of this judgement could be absolutely disastrous.The final paragraph of that release said:The Federal Government must act swiftly and must receive support in the Senate to fix this situation quickly before too many jobs are lost.Business and industry are calling out for Labor, the Democrats and the Greens to support changes to unfair dismissals and to help create jobs, but they are simply turning away They are turning away from one of the biggest monkeys on the back of small business. They are turning away from reducing unemployment levels in their own electorates and from supporting the creation of jobs. When we look at Labor's record on creating jobs, there is no policy there. Labor claimed in the 1998 election campaign that it could reduce unemployment to five per cent, yet it produced no plan at all to get there. Instead, Labor offered 53 reviews and inquiries, as well as talkfests, task forces and meetings, as a substitute for policy. Under Labor, award wages for low-paid workers fell in real terms. Labor ministers publicly boasted about the fall in real wages, claiming it was a deliberate economic strategy. Over the life of the Labor-ACTU accord, even the low-paid workers suffered a five per cent decline in real wages. By contrast, real wages have grown under the coalition. Labor's record on creating jobs is just as abysmal. The people in Paterson remember the high unemployment rates under Labor. And what is Labor's solution? Talking, talking, talking and more talking—never sitting down and formulating policy on creating jobs, never sitting down with businesses to discuss what environment will allow for the creation of jobs. Labor's only plan is stalling on measures which they know are right and which they know will create jobs growth for small business. If Labor members opposite cared about the unemployment levels, they would support this bill that takes the monkey off the back of small business and spells out job creation within small business. As I said earlier in this debate, the problem is that Labor does not understand small business. Most of their members have never been in small business or worked in small business. They have been the slaves of the union movement. I would like to conclude by quoting a friend and colleague, Joe Hockey, the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. He summed it up quite simply when he said:If you want to know what the Labor Party does to small business look no further than Western Australia. Small businesses are closing up. Small businesses are sacking people. Small businesses are not able to operate seven days a week to earn the money that is going to sustain their families and the families of their employees. The Labor Party is against small business. The coalition is for small business.I do not know where the Labor Party thinks jobs come from. Government should be about only the planning framework, but it is small business that creates jobs and it is the owners of those small businesses that put their money, their investment, their risk on the line to create those jobs. If we want small business to create jobs, we need to remove the barriers. One of the greatest barriers put to me by the people of Paterson is that, once they have taken on an employee—and it has happened on many occasions—they have been marched off to the unfair dismissal courts when they sought to terminate that person. They usually terminate people because the work has disappeared and they cannot afford to keep that person on. So here we have the double whammy: they cannot afford to keep them on but they cannot afford the cost of going to the tribunal. It is not just the cost of attending and defending; it is the cost of the loss of a day's work. A lot of these people are small mum and dad businesses comprising one or two people, and time away from work means time they are not earning income. So quite often they settle just to get rid of the matter. If it were the members opposite and their money, their hands in their own pockets paying for this, how would they react? That is why the Labor Party cannot understand what this bill is about, that it is about taking the monkey off the back of small business and creating job opportunities by removing a barrier—a barrier that these people have never had to experience because they have never been in small business. They have never taken the risk and they have never put their hard-earned money and their family security on the line. That is the problem with the Labor Party. What we have here are union hacks, party officials and people who have never done an honest day's work for a living in their lives. I ask the House to support this bill.21:53:0010047Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I am delighted to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 after the member for Paterson because what we just had was buffoonery of the highest order. The arguments he put in relation to the background of Labor Party members are absurd. We know that the minister—LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—Which small business were you in?LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Which small business? Do you want to talk about my Uncle Tommy, who ran produce stores in Bankstown and in Smithfield?LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—No, you.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Do you want to talk about my mother, Kathleen Cecilia Hatton, born in West Wyalong in 1924, who moved to Bankstown in 1925? For 25 years she ran the Bambi day nursery at 6 Meredith Street, Bankstown, where the Australian Taxation Office is.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—Is she in parliament? No.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—My family history is in small business.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—What about you?LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—They were people owning small businesses and people working for small businesses. Sixty per cent of the work force in this country work for small businesses, including members of my family.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin—Why don't you support it?LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—You have had your go, pal, so cut the interjections. What we have here is a broad-brush approach by the government, inappropriately and inexpertly trying to run an argument about Labor's background in small business. I have discussed the matter directly with the minister and he said very simply that he is only talking about Labor's experience in the Senate. That is all. He has not canvassed the experience in here because it is not as easy an argument to make. He talked about Senator Barney Cooney being the only person with small business experience in the Senate. He was a lawyer. Not that Barney is not a good bloke, but he was a lawyer. That was his small business. Look along that whole front bench on the government side. What have you got? Farmers—either small, medium or large businesses—and lawyers littering the bench from one end to the other. Sure, some of them ran small businesses, but they were particular niche businesses. They are not entirely representative of the people in my electorate, which is littered with small business people who, whatever government is in power, are impacted upon by that government. I want to speak about the experience of people in the Labor Party and their families—because I would expect that the general context in which people operate is the context in which they grow up. They come to understandings throughout their lives, not just from their personal experiences but from the experiences of their siblings, their parents and their grandparents. Those things inform their childhood and their period of growth. Certainly in my case those experiences have had a profound influence. For 25 years, assisted by my Auntie Gwen and my grandmother, my mother ran a small business in Bankstown, a childminding business. It was not a business that demanded no skills or few skills or just a pleasant face at the door while you were doing things. The care and maintenance of young children—because it is not just care but maintenance and helping them to grow in place of the parent, because carers are in loco parentis—is an important thing to do.My mother's experience was also as an Army typist in the Public Service during the war. Most of the experience of my uncles was in small business. Tommy was a manager in a produce store in Bankstown, which I worked in, and ran his own shop in Smithfield. My uncle Eris Dooner ran a shop for people in Bankstown and moved to Armidale, where he has been an extraordinarily successful businessman for over 35 years, running Armidale Home Furnishers. He has done exceptionally well. I mentioned in the House the other day another small business man in my family, Lennie Dooner. I could mention my Uncle John, who was primarily a carpet layer for the whole of his life but who also had a series of other businesses. He is well known to the former Minister for Finance and Administration, John Fahey, as a friend. They both live in Camden and know each other well. I could refer to my brother Anthony, who again spent a lifetime in small business, in carpet laying. He was originally apprenticed to John, then he ran his own business.The nature of our work force in the past—the way people either chose to work for themselves in small business or to work for others in small business—in that more than half a century of my experience, was such that you could be pretty sure someone wanted to run a business and was able to establish it successfully and keep it going through relatively good economic times, taking the hits with the bad. For those people who worked for these small businesses in the past, the level of casualisation in the work force was relatively low. We are in another economic era now compared to 30 or 40 years ago. You have only to think of the period from 1950 onwards and what has happened to the structure of the work force and the impacts of that changed structure to determine what response is necessary from this House and the approach that needs to be taken. Through the eighties and nineties, the pressures to casualise the work force were very strong. Labor's approach, in government and out, is that, if you have massive structural change and massive institutional change in the economy, you had better have some answers as to how you accommodate that. We have realised that casualisation of the work force is a significant matter.When you step outside this building when we close down this joint from 11 o'clock tonight, you will be lucky to find six Comcar drivers who are permanently employed. A couple of years ago, you would have come across 12 of them. If you go back a couple more years, there were 23. Prior to that, when we were in government—and our lot are not without sin in terms of what we did to belt Comcar around the head—there was a strong history of permanent employment. It is not so now. There are six permanent drivers in Canberra, six in Sydney, six in Melbourne and six in Brisbane, and we will no doubt get to a point when there will be none. The people who work just outside this place for Comcar have been casualised. The government have said, `We don't need the services all the time.' They have run a campaign within and outside Comcar to say, `We don't need all of that; we just need you as and when we need you—on call.' Apart from those who are employed on a permanent basis, those who are employed on a casual basis will be affected by this bill. If they do not get a guernsey for more than six months—or for the legislative bottom of 12 months—they could be in a position where, overnight, they get the bullet, and they will have no recourse. The shadow minister ran a series of arguments. He has run them previously with regard to other bills we have had before us. This bill had its genesis in February 2002. Before tonight we have had only three people talk on the bill: one, the minister; two, the member for Grey, I think, in a cognate debate in about May; and, three, in June the member for Fowler was able to speak. So we have had the minister and a couple of other people. Tonight we have this one piece of legislation which deals with part of what the government seeks to achieve, and we know the whole box and dice that the government tried to get through under the member for Flinders. We know that this government are all about dismemberment; that is, dismemberment of the original Workplace Relations Act into 12 different bits. They have run one bit through—the `unfair dismissals' which they turned into `fair dismissals'. That is the Orwellian doublespeak that underlies most of this legislation: turning something that is into something that should be perceived as that which it is not. They have run a series of bills to try to get elements of the original package through, and they have not succeeded.Why haven't they got Labor Party support, Democrats support or Greens support for what they want to do here? It is because there is a fundamental recognition that, if the work force is fundamentally changed, if you cannot go outside and find more than half a dozen permanently employed Comcar people, there is a basic structural change. You might find that, in the other departments—in, say, Joint House—people have been casualised or are under the threat of casualisation because of increasing changes. Walk out the door and down to DFAT and to the other government departments around the place; you will find that the idea that you should contract out to those outside has had a great run since 1996. The impact of contracting out is that permanent jobs in the federal Public Service are lost to private industry. What often happens when you contract out—which is the normal way of doing things now—is that people who are casualised, who are in a dependent relationship for a short period of time, get the work. We have seen this move right through industry.You can understand the normal economic and the cultural imperatives that move business—small, medium and large—towards casualisation. It is not as if any of this is new. Through the eighties and nineties the moves were very strong, but those moves have been validated time and time again by this government since 1996. The underlying rationale is that the cost of holding employees is too high. Manufacturers in the seventies and eighties said, `All of that is too hard, so we'll just whip off to Malaysia or Indonesia and set up a factory there because you don't have to worry about conditions like long service leave, super or anything else. You can pay low wages and you can run it that way.' We know that, in the globalisation model, that has happened with almost every major advanced manufacturing country on the planet. They have sought low wages and few conditions and they have continued to build the strength of their economies on transferring labour to countries where costs are low.Given that there has been a strong movement towards that, the dismemberment of people's expectations of their employment has happened in the community at large. For a member of parliament—and it is not the most secure job on the planet—at least the tenure is, if we run three years, three years. There is that possibility. But it is different for people who are working for us as casual Comcar drivers or for people who have been turfed out of CSIRO. The driver I had the other day had been in CSIRO for 25 years, and he is out of there because they have made adjustments and they have cut down. One thousand people have been thrown out of CSIRO by this government latterly—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—They haven't. They are increasing their numbers.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Hang on, Minister. I will answer you. Rather than have the minister interjecting, I would be very grateful if you could protect me from him, Mr Deputy Speaker. 10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The minister will cease interjecting and the honourable member for Blaxland will ignore the interjections.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The minister and his government are attempting to play catch-up. They knocked off more than 1,000 jobs in CSIRO. The government's innovation statement was an attempt by the Prime Minister in particular to gather to himself the chief government scientist and the scientific community around Australia. It was a desperate act to grab an agenda won from the Labor Party. We were out there before with a forward looking scientific agenda to try to repair the damage that has been done by this government to the scientific institutions in this country. We did this to repair the damage done not only to CSIRO but also to our other government departments with research and development backing, including to some CRCs that have been knocked over—although generally they have been protected—and to repair damage done to a range of industries by the government thinking they should deal themselves out of the game.One of the ways of cutting their costs is to offload people. They have decided that science and innovation is fashionable. They have decided to increase the numbers because they flattened them in the first place—in 1996, 1997 and 1998—to achieve major budget savings. We have a government that is in the business of outsourcing, a government that is in the business of casualising and a government that is in the business of ensuring that that mode of operation continues. It leaves employees in the uncertain position of not knowing where the next job is coming from, how they are going to support themselves and their families or even whether they can put together a family in the first place. They have to juggle a series of different casual jobs which might run from a week to two weeks or from three months to six months, and they have to put together a package of them because finding permanent work on a full-time basis is not as easy as it was in the past.The situation opening up for people in the 1960s and the 1970s—when I left school—was a paradise in work terms compared with what people face now, because there was still the certainty that you would be able to run with whatever you finally picked up. In the period prior to that we had the whole apprenticeship experience, with people aged 14, 16 or 17 changing careers, doing different things and then locking themselves into a career. All of that has gone. We know that, we accept it and we have to adjust to it. But we also have to accept the fact that if the economic forces are such that the permanent jobs are casualised down then you need to take that into account. The brutality of an ideological approach which says, `If you happen to be forced into a position where you've got a casual job, you will have no protections' is of no use, and that is what the explanatory memorandum lays out. That is what it says in the outline of this bill; that is what it says in schedule 1.Let us look at who is affected by this: employees engaged for a specified period of time—there are plenty of those short-term contracts around, and a hell of a lot since 1996 compared with the number prior to 1996; employees engaged for a specified task; employees who are on probation, as long as the length of probation is three months or less or reasonable having regard to the particular employment; casual employees engaged for a short period, short-term casuals—maybe some of those Comcar drives outside; trainees who are employed under particular types of traineeship agreements or who are employed under a traineeship for a specified period; and non-award employees who earn more than a particular rate established in the Workplace Relations Regulations. That list corresponds to the list of employees currently excluded from the operation of the termination of employment provisions by regulation 30B—and so on.That is the hit list. They are people who, as a result of this legislation, are going to be determined to try to react to three cases. The first is Hamzy v. Tricon International Restaurants, and the Federal Court appeal in relation to that case. The second is the metals case before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in 2000. That was a very interesting case, and it has not got any broader than that. The shadow minister detailed part of this case in his speech. The decision by the commission brought up to date the situation of casuals within the metals industry. It was pretty much out of date—more than a quarter of a century. Where did it bring them up to? This is not in terms of what any arbitration commissioner said; not in terms of what any Labor politician, either backbencher or shadow minister, said. What did Mr Bob Herbert, from the AIG, have to say? He is the most influential spokesman in the metals industry, from the employers side, that you could find. He said: There has been no adjustment to casual employment for 26 years. Certainly, there will be some murmurs among employers over the increased loading rates but, in reality the AIRC ruling simply brings casuals to roughly the same pay and condition levels as their full-time colleagues.You might ask what is wrong with that. If, after a quarter of a century, you are going to bring them up to reasonable parity, what is wrong with that—unless you think they should be in a `Thailandised' state; unless you think they should be battered down in terms of the conditions available to them? When the current Prime Minister was Treasurer of the Commonwealth—as he was in 1974, and in 1977-78 after the death of Phillip Lynch, and he remained Treasurer until 1983, when the Liberals were flicked—he actually had the trifecta: double digit unemployment, interest rates and inflation. No Labor Treasurer has ever achieved that trifecta. We might have had one or two, but we did not get all three. This bloke has spent his entire prime ministership running away from that. Question time after question time the Treasurer slyly alludes to Labor's record, but it is really a belt at the Prime Minister, who is attempting to assuage his conscience over what he has done.Having a detrimental impact on employment in small business or across industry is not a good thing. You cannot escape the economic cycles. We have been pretty good at that recently, because the foundation laid by Labor in entirely reconstructing this economy in the 1980s and 1990s has been incredibly strong. But it is not good enough to distort the record of Labor's employment achievements. The member for Paterson did that in this House; it is the one thing I have not alluded to in terms of what he did. It is an entire distortion to argue that Labor's record in that regard is poor. Equally, time and time again following his ministers, there are attempts to make an argument that Labor brutalised people in terms of their real wages.There was an accord. There was an agreement that if you were going to create more jobs then you needed to spread the load and the pain. That basic push put Labor in a position where we could create a record number of jobs, far beyond what this lot has done. And this government has created far more casual jobs than Labor did relatively. We have a proud record in regard to that. We have a proud record in sensitively handling the issue of casualisation and trying to make sure that people were not belted into the ground. We were also willing to face reality and not drill people through the head when it came to the question of small business and the difficulty people had with unfair dismissals. The original legislation was changed; it was dramatically modified. This government's legislation, effectively, is no different. (Time expired)22:13:0010051Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I note the member for Blaxland is still in the House. I wonder how the businesses owned by the member for Blaxland's relations would have coped with an unfair dismissal claim if they had employed casuals? My parents run a very small orchard; they have for many decades. They grow cherries, and the cherry season is very short—perhaps a couple of weeks. For decades, they have employed casual workers. Usually, it turns out that it is the first job a person has ever had. In fact, since the Second World War, they have employed waves of new migrants to this country on a casual basis, and it has often been the first job that those people have had in Australia. My parents are very proud of that fact. They still do employ many new migrants to this country on a casual basis in the cherry picking season in the Adelaide Hills. But I know that, if they were subjected to a dismissal claims regime, they would not employ anyone; they would do it themselves. My father is 79 and my mother is 73, but they would do it themselves. 0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—They must be pretty agile.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—They are very agile. So who loses? They would lose, of course, but so would the workers; so would these waves of new migrants who have come to Australia and who are employed, probably for the first time, in the Adelaide Hills, picking cherries. We are talking about winners and losers here, and I am trying to find out who is the winner.Let us look at the bill that is before the House tonight. I believe the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 is another legislative instrument of the Howard government that is intended to achieve the dual objectives of more jobs and better pay for Australian workers. Six years after the Liberal Party re-entered federal government, the benefits of workplace relations reform are obvious. Over 950,600 new jobs have been created. More than 9.3 million Australians now have a job. The unemployment rate has crashed to a seasonally adjusted six per cent nationally, the latest figures being at their lowest level in two years, while the participation rate is at a historically high level. Unfair dismissal claims have fallen by 48 per cent as a result of three-month probation periods on new employees and restrictions on unscrupulous lawyers. Real wages for the lowest paid workers have risen by nearly nine per cent, and industrial disputation has fallen by a third. In the further pursuit of these objectives, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 amends the Workplace Relations Act so as to ensure that the laws concerning the termination of employment do not act as a disadvantage to Australian businesses or as a disincentive to the employment of Australian workers. As such, it is legislation that will be of obvious benefit to Australian businesses, their employees and the unemployed who so desperately want the reward, both financial and moral, of work.The specific spur for this bill was a decision taken by the Federal Court in November 2001 to rule as invalid regulations excluding short-term casual employees—the sort of people my parents employ—from making unfair dismissal claims. The basis of this Federal Court decision, in the case of Hamzy v. Tricon International Restaurants trading as KFC, was an interpretation of the breadth of the regulation making power of the Workplace Relations Act. As a consequence, the longstanding practice by which casual employees were unable to access the dismissal claims system—unless their employment was on a regular and systematic basis for a period of at least 12 months and the employee in question had a reasonable expectation of continuing work with that same employer—was threatened. In turn, a significant barrier to the employment of short-term casual workers was inadvertently raised by the court, to the detriment of those seeking this kind of flexible work and the employers who wish to employ them. This is of particular importance, given the increasing preference of workers for this kind of employment. Figures presented to the Federal Court have indicated that 25 per cent of the Australian work force—over two million people—is casually employed.As a remedy to what I think was an unfortunate situation generated by Hamzy v. Tricon International Restaurants trading as KFC, the bill before the House restores the prohibition on short-term casuals accessing federal unfair dismissal laws. It repeals the previous regulations so that their provisions can be written into the act itself. It retrospectively validates the regulations in question, and includes in the act a requirement that applicants for relief under the federal unfair dismissal laws lodge a $50 filing fee. This latter requirement will supplant a fee presently imposed by way of regulation. In short, the bill permanently restores the law governing the termination of employment of short-term casuals to that which was understood by the government, the parliament, employers and employees prior to November of last year.The principle that short-term casual employees should not be able to access unfair dismissal laws was established under the Labor government in 1994. It has been strongly supported by this government. The principle was articulated in the coalition's election policy and was supported by the electorate. Some members opposite would like to claim that there is a bias in the workplace reforms initiated by the coalition government. Because they are still locked into some sort of 19th century Marxist interpretation of relationships as wholly class based, they cannot conceive of economic activity as being anything other than a zero sum game. As such, in their eyes policy apportions shares to the pie. They can say nothing of the size of the pie. Because some in our media are still stuck in the same Marxian time warp, there is a constant danger that this erroneous interpretation might be communicated to the public as fact. It is to the great relief of this government, and to the citizens of this country, that we have in the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations an articulate, thoughtful and comprehending advocate of 21st century reform. In the context of this debate, I am reminded of a speech given by the minister to the Industrial Relations Society of Queensland earlier this year—an excerpt of which appeared in the Financial Review—in which he articulated the industrial perspective of this government. He said:This Government has tried to give employers a fair go, not because we see them through rose coloured glasses but because, in the end, that's usually what's best for most workers. We want to change the unfair dismissal law, not because we think workers should be liable to capricious sacking but because a few hard cases do not justify this handbrake on small businesses' ability to create new jobs. We want secret ballots before strikes, not because we want to disempower workers but because we oppose union officials using them as reluctant pawns in political campaigns.The minister also said:We're against compulsory union levies, not because unions should lack the standard capacity to charge a reasonable fee for a genuine service but because making workers pay for something they didn't request and don't necessarily need is a scam.This is the key. This government understand that both workers and employees have a stake in commercial success. They share a mutual interest in the health of their business enterprises. This bill recognises that the decision by the Federal Court last year jeopardised the interests of employees and employers. We want to put matters right. As such, this bill ought to receive the support not only of this side but of all members of the House. I commend this bill to the House.22:23:0010053King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—I am delighted to be able to rise this evening to support the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002, which has been proposed by the minister. The amount of interest shown by the opposition in this matter is rather less than expected, which has caused me to rise to my feet rather earlier than I had otherwise anticipated. But it is a pleasure nonetheless.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—We could get the bill now. I've a couple I'd like to get through.00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—If the minister is suggesting that the matter be now put, I am happy to support him. As he knows, I have tremendous respect for both his judgment and his leadership in relation to matters of legislation and everything that concerns ordinary Australians—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—And the bill?00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—and particularly the bill before the House. Nothing is more important to the effective working of an economy than good industrial relations, because nothing is more important than keeping our workers in jobs and our businesses in business. The reason this bill ought to be supported is that it achieves that outcome. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on the reform program which has been at the heart of the coalition reforms since it came to office in 1996. I was elected just some 12 months ago, but I have taken a particular interest in industrial relations law. I have followed with intense interest the progress of reformist legislation in this area since 1996 because I have a strong belief that reform of industrial relations law is absolutely necessary as a fundamental plank, as a precondition and as a starting point for successful government in the modern era. That has been a position expressed by others and perhaps most eloquently by the Prime Minister himself as late as today during question time. But it is true and it is worth repeating, and I repeat it because I strongly support it. As I have this opportunity to speak for the first time on the workplace relations legislation, I will take some time to review the principal act, the Workplace Relations Act, and illustrate how this bill will enhance the existing programs of the government in achieving good outcomes not just for industrial relations but for the economy generally. Firstly, let me focus on the Workplace Relations Act itself. It is, as the title suggests, an act concerning the workplace. That may seem a simplistic comment but it is an absolute truism about the direction of industrial relations since 1996 and since the introduction of the basic statute, the Workplace Relations Act, by the former minister the Hon. Peter Reith. Why is that so? The reason it was such a fundamental and important change is that industrial relations have been a critical issue for parliament in this country since Federation. It has been a matter that has been at the heart of the difference between the two principal parties, in government and in opposition, since 1901. The reason it is so important is that the focus in this statute is not upon an industry, not upon an association, not upon a trade, not upon an employer federation and not even upon a broader focus such as the impact on an economy but, rather, upon the workplace. That is the fundamental and paradigm shift in this legislation which I believe has been an important part of the reform program since 1996 and of which the government and the coalition can be very proud. Others also have outlined the actual outcomes in terms of good consequences for both the workers and the businesses of Australia.The second aspect of the bill which is very important can also be taken from the title, and that is the fact that it concerns relations. It is a bill which concerns the relations between the employee and the employer. It does not concern a broader context. It is not a fight between capital and labour. The fight between those fundamental interests and those Marxist categorisations—the socialist concepts of the past—are now arguments of the past. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—That is what you think.00AMQKing, Peter, MPMr KING—It is, therefore, very important that the focus of this statute since 1996 has been without demur from the opposition—until a short while ago when I heard from the member for Watson. The focus of modern industrial relations legislation should be upon relations, not upon worker interests or capital versus labour, as in the hoary old concepts of 19th century economists and outdated sociological theorists who no longer have any relevance to the answers for the modern world. The third aspect of this legislation which has proved very important is the fact that it covers an economy. It is comprehensive, and that is terribly important.Debate interrupted. Adjournment1005410000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1005422:30:0010054McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Tonight I want to speak about multiculturalism in Australia, and I am pleased to see that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs is here. Multiculturalism in this country has had a ripple effect throughout the world. It has struck me that there have been some extraordinary success stories both here in Australia and internationally and I would like to take the opportunity tonight to bring some of them to the attention of the House. To me, these are the jewels of Australia's multiculturalism. They show how successful we have been in nurturing our people, no matter where they have come from. These success stories do not sit easily with some of our current policies and attitudes, exemplified by the way we are treating many asylum seekers. We are largely a nation of migrants sourced from every corner of the world. While migrants from Europe—mainly from the British Isles—form the largest group, we have in the past welcomed people from lands and cultures that are very different from the European. Unfortunately, it seems this is no longer the case. We now live in a world of suspicion and fear; we treat many of our fellow human beings who want to come here in search of a haven as if they were criminals or worse. I think it is timely to look at some of the more interesting and successful results of our willingness to take in people from parts of the world that are very different from Australia. My colleague and friend the member for Grayndler last night mentioned Hazem El Masri, the Canterbury winger who is, of course, of Lebanese descent. What an amazing young man he is. Not only is he a brilliant footballer but he is a respected member of his community and a wonderful ambassador for people of the Muslim faith in Australia in particular. There are also people currently in other countries who were born in Australia, or who may have lived here for periods of time, who are now contributing in significant ways to their current home. Abdul Khaliq Fazal spent 30 years in Melbourne. Now he is a minister in the Afghan government. He regards himself as an Afghan and also as an Australian. He understands both cultures. The value of having such a person is almost immeasurable. There is Ung Huot in Cambodia, who served as co-Prime Minister with Hun Sen and was previously Foreign Minister of Cambodia. He was formerly an engineer with Telstra in Sydney. He has dual nationality: he is an Australian and a Cambodian. I have met people who have served in the Lebanese parliament who grew up in Australia and were Australian citizens. I have met MPs in Iran who spent many years in Australia as students. And, Mr Speaker, that is mentioning only people involved in our profession. There are many writers, academics, artists and talented people whose lives have been shaped by both their country of origin and their country of choice. If Australia had embraced a narrow, purely assimilationist policy, this two-way flow may not have ever occurred. I have chosen these examples deliberately because of the geographic locations. These people are not in Europe or of Europe but in countries that are, in varying ways, quite different from Australia. Some of them live in trouble spots. All of them have challenging jobs to fulfil. But all of them have experienced life in this country and all of them have their own experiences of life here which have helped them shape their attitudes. Multiculturalism enables us to recognise and appreciate the many different cultures in Australia, to embrace those differences and to respect and defend each other's right to be different. I am very proud of what true multiculturalism in Australia has achieved. I hope that we will continue to be a welcoming nation to those who need care and a safe place to live. Experience has shown that multiculturalism is not a one-way street. It is not just about people coming here; it is also about people leaving here and taking with them an appreciation of our way of life, which I hope makes them better able to face the challenges in their chosen careers elsewhere. We have been a great success. We should not forget it; we should rejoice in it. At Christmas we should remember those things that make us Australians, but more particularly we should remember that we must try to give shelter and help to those who need it. We should remember those people who came here and went out from this country again and have done great jobs in the world. The few people I have mentioned tonight are great examples of that, and we should not forget it. They have made us proud and we should be very proud of them. 1005522:35:0010055Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—The parliament should be aware of some strike action that has delayed important works being undertaken as part of the upgrade of Sutherland Hospital, which provides important health care services to the people of my electorate. Led by members of the CFMEU and other unions, including the New South Wales Plumbers Union and the Electrical Trades Union, workers have walked off the site on three—possibly four—Fridays in a row. Recently I was made aware that workers on the site had walked away from work on two Fridays in succession due to the fact that the water supply to the site had been temporarily cut off. Work had also stopped on the third Friday, although it is not clear whether the stop-work was also over the issue of water. I am not aware of the reasons why water provision to the site was temporarily cut off; however, I presume it would be due to the fact that it was necessary in order to perform certain procedures elsewhere on the site. You would assume that this is a fairly normal occurrence in and around a major construction zone. We are all familiar with having our water supply cut off at home when work is occurring in the street. In fact, only last week my electorate office's water supply was temporarily stopped due to work on the Kingsway. In the case of Sutherland Hospital, I understand that on both occasions, within a very short time of the water being cut off, a CFMEU delegate had arrived at the site to request that all work cease immediately due to occupational health and safety concerns. In each case the delegate's argument was that the safety of workers was endangered by having no running water directly available on the site. On each occasion it has been brought to my attention that the delegate called a union meeting, after which all workers left the site, including those who were not affected by the lack of water access. I am further told that, on each occasion that the water was turned off, it was back on again within three to four hours. While this is a considerable amount of time, it hardly amounts to an occupational health and safety risk. Surely arrangements can be made to provide workers with water from elsewhere once it established that access would be restricted for a period. It cannot be a coincidence that the CFMEU has recently signalled its intention to campaign for a 36-hour week with all employers in the industry. Unions have a limited recourse to industrial action during the time an industrial agreement is being negotiated, so this `spoiling' action at Sutherland Hospital appears a roundabout way of pushing their case for a 36-hour week without actually calling a full-blown strike. Not only are the CFMEU using OH&S standards as a cover for pushing their agenda outside other enterprise bargaining processes but also there has been unhelpful action taken by the Plumbers Union and the Electrical Trades Union, which are also present on the site.Of greatest concern to me, as the local member, is that the important improvements being made to Sutherland hospital have been delayed by these frivolous actions. The Carr government promised the upgrade at the last state election and have made a huge song and dance in the area about the works since they commenced. Perhaps Bob Carr and his representative in the local area, Barry Collier, could simply get going and get on to the phone to their union mates to ensure that no more industrial action occurs on this important local site under the guise of an OH&S risk. There is no question that the practices of the CFMEU in our local area warrant close investigation. The regressive sympathy tactics of the other unions also deserve condemnation. This sort of behaviour cannot be allowed to go on.Improvements to our local hospital are being delayed by frivolous and thuggish union activity that threatens to take building site workplace relations back to the dark days of yesteryear. The improvement to Sutherland hospital is too important to our community to be misused in this way. Sutherland hospital provides all of the medical requirements—except for Kareela hospital, which is a private hospital—of all of the residents in the Sutherland Shire. It is an important centre for all of the health activities. We have an array of specialists who are located in the vicinity of the hospital. The important role that it carries out is going to be delayed by many weeks by the simple practices that these unions are employing. Unions have a specific and important role in our community, but these types of tactics must be condemned by the wider community to ensure that we have our hospital on time in the Sutherland Shire to the benefit of all community residents.1005622:40:0010056Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Last month the National report to parliament on Indigenous education and training, 2001 was tabled, and statements were made by the minister for education, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as shadow spokesperson, and the member for Lingiari. There has been a motion to take note of the paper, but that has not proceeded as yet. I believe that this is a very important type of report. It enables the two houses of this parliament to take the appropriate steps by having a reference document that gives an indication of where we are at with progress in, in this case, Indigenous education. This report is a requirement of the legislation which was enacted in late 2000. One of my purposes in raising this national report tonight is to highlight that, sadly, it indicates the need for us to concentrate on making sure that Indigenous education is improved. The difference between retention rates for students going through to year 12 is 73 per cent nationally compared to 38 per cent of Indigenous students. This report makes a comparison about the differences in achievements of literacy levels at year 5 between the wider Australian community and Indigenous students. I was heartened that there were themes in this report which indicated that we could best progress Indigenous health by listening and responding to the Indigenous communities themselves, by enabling Indigenous communities to be involved in the decision making, by making sure that we take the skills that Indigenous students have and use them to their fullest in their education settings and by setting a curriculum that is, in turn, challenging for Indigenous students.My purpose tonight in raising this matter is that back in May 2000 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs tabled its report, Health is life: report on the inquiry into Indigenous health. In that report, the committee urged the then minister for Aboriginal affairs—however titled—to make an annual report to parliament about progress in Indigenous health. Regrettably, in its response to the report the government did not comment directly about such reporting. Indeed, we indicated through this report—the committee was unanimous—that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs should be responsible for coordinating the efforts across portfolios in the many facets that affect Indigenous health. Here, 2½ years later, we still have had no progress report about the state of Indigenous health. I think that is a problem.Coincidentally, today there are reports in the newspapers of Reconciliation Australia indicating the need—it is highlighted in the article that I was reading—to concentrate on decreasing domestic violence in Indigenous communities. The cochairpersons of the body indicated that they were pleased by the progress that has been made by federal and state governments in setting benchmarks and points of reference so that we can measure the progress or otherwise. I believe that we really have to take this seriously. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, who is in the chamber, was quoted in our report of May 2000 because he chaired an inquiry—I think it was back in the late seventies, although I might be dating him unfairly by saying that—in which he said things that continue to be apposite to now, into the 21st century.I believe that until this place takes responsibility for discussing the plight of our Indigenous communities—through such things as the National report to parliament on Indigenous education and training or having such a national report on Indigenous health—we will not see the progress necessary to decrease the disparities between the health outcomes for Indigenous people as compared to non-Indigenous people. Finally, I am pleased to see, in an answer to a question that was put on notice by the honourable member for Lowe, that there has been instituted the Puggy Hunter Memorial Scholarships, which will enable Indigenous people to go into undergraduate studies in health, nursing and other allied health professions. (Time expired)1005722:45:0010057Ciobo, Steven, MPMr CIOBO00AN0MoncrieffLP10—Recently, the Gold Coast City Council and a number of leaders of the Gold Coast business community, as well as a number of key bureaucrats at a Gold Coast City level, visited Canberra as part of the Gold Coast City's roadshow to Canberra. Part of the driving force behind the roadshow to Canberra was for Gold Coast City to highlight the unique challenges Gold Coast City faces as Australia's fastest growing city, as a city that has held that mantle for 30 years and, it is expected, will continue to hold that mantle for an additional 25 years. Our population growth is in excess of 15,000 per annum net. This is an incredible rate and is more than double the next fastest growing area in the whole country. Another part of the roadshow was to highlight some of the unique challenges that this rapid population growth presents to the Gold Coast council and those of us who are elected to represent the Gold Coast community. A fundamental part of that was to demonstrate to the Howard government what it could do to assist the Gold Coast community to grow, to assist the Gold Coast community to move forward and to assist the Gold Coast community and all of the businesses and people that work within it to continue to strive for the next level. I am delighted to stand here today as a part of the Howard government and say that the Howard government is most certainly delivering for the people of the Gold Coast. It was only yesterday that I learned that $2 million had been allocated to Griffith University to assist the university directly with respect to the provision of new infrastructure for the students that attend it. This $2 million was the result of an application put in by the administration of Griffith University for Capital Development Pool funding. Griffith was successful and indeed received, as I said, $2 million.Today, I am delighted to have learned that the Howard government has once again delivered, although what it delivered today was an incredible boost for everyone on the Gold Coast, for all of those businesses and for all of those people that are involved in the tourism industry. Today, the Minister for Science, the member for Gippsland, together with the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, the honourable member for North Sydney, announced that the Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism would be in receipt of funding of $26.7 million. This funding will go a long way towards ensuring that, going forward, all Gold Coasters—but not only the Gold Coast; rather, all of Australia—will benefit from exciting new research and development work on infrastructure development in tourism and also on some of the challenges that tourism presents both ecologically and in terms of the industry remaining sustainable.I was delighted to learn the CRC for Sustainable Tourism, as a result of this $26.7 million grant that was announced today, will be able to look forward to a number of different projects that will ensure that the CRC is in a position to undertake some exciting new research and development for the tourism industry. If there is one thing that the member for North Sydney's 10-year plan for tourism and the discussion paper have highlighted, it is the need to make sure that the tourism industry has appropriate strategies in place to minimise risk but also to undertake research and development. At present, the expenditure for research and development is less than two per cent of the total value of the tourism sector. Today, however, with funding of $26.7 million for the CRC, there will be a number of different R&D activities that can be undertaken. These will include research and development into lessening the environmental impact of tourism activities. They will also include provision and research to look at ways to increase the yield and profitability for all of those businesses that are reliant upon the tourism industry. In addition they will examine the way in which we can continue to grow jobs in the tourism sector—one of the fastest sectors to create job growth throughout Australia. Further, they will look at ways we can continue to generate increased export income not only for the Gold Coast but for all of Australia.In short, the announcement today of $26.7 million for the CRC for Sustainable Tourism at Griffith University is a tremendous sign of confidence from the Howard government to the people of the Gold Coast, and it is a clear demonstration of the Howard government's continuing push to ensure that the Gold Coast's unique challenges and unique tourism industry are well and truly catered for. I am delighted to have been able to make the announcement today, together with the member for McPherson, Margaret May. I am sure that all Gold Coasters will join in recognising the importance of this contribution. (Time expired)1005922:50:0010059Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—In the Christian calendar, we are now in the second week of Advent, that four-week period leading up to Christmas. Christmas has never been more significant or relevant, both as a longstanding tradition within Australia and around the world and as a profound reminder of the peace and goodwill that you, Mr Speaker, spoke about to an ecumenical gathering in this House earlier tonight. Sadly, forgotten for many is the fact that Australia is a country built on Christian values. Its laws, its jurisprudence, its way of life and its being the land of the fair go—all this derives from the Christian ethos. Substitute or subrogate these idioms and you replace that Christian matrix with alternative matrices which do not afford the ideologies that compositely we call democracy. From where do the very terms `natural law' and `natural justice' flow? Where does the jurisprudential notion of universalism flow? They are from Christianity, which alone holds true to these ideologies and embeds within them every fibre of our social fabric. Modern and not so modern ideologies are not universalist. Liberalism, utilitarianism, hedonism, consequentialism and other religious creeds are all morally or culturally relativist in one way or another. With cultural and moral relativism comes loss of democracy and, ultimately, tyranny and slavery.So what is the significance of Christmas? Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace born as a physical human being. Christmas marks a celebration of the very fact of this event, that Jesus was a real baby who was really born and who was really the Son of God. Christmas is thus about the birth of Jesus Christ and, as you know and said earlier tonight, Mr Speaker, about peace and goodwill to all mankind. In the face of the tragic events of Bali, I believe that it is also timely to reflect on the contribution of a famous saint who did much to bring true peace to our now very insecure and troubled part of the world, St Francis Xavier. During the 16th century, St Francis proselytised much of Asia, including China, India, Ceylon—which is now called Sri Lanka—Japan and the Moluccas Islands. Unbelievably, the people of these communities are now the most persecuted peoples in the world for their very faith in Christ and Christmas; yet, paradoxically, these same people are the very reason why peace still has a chance in our Asia-Pacific region.It was St Francis who noted that the future of Asia lies in China as Asia's dominant political, financial and military power. This could not be any truer than now. In my view, the regional security of Australia will increasingly depend on China and not on the United States. It is therefore imperative that Australia and China have a true philosophical meeting of minds. The great St Francis brought with him the seeds of universalism, the rule of law, reason and other great gifts that contrast so sharply with the moral and cultural relativist religious, political and secular ideologies that plague the Asia-Pacific region today.We would do very well to read and understand the philosophy and direction of St Francis Xavier. His relevance to Australia in these times is both immediate and direct. Nothing could be of greater importance to Australia in terms of our direct and immediate security, and the financial, social and other costs we are all bearing from the scourge of global terrorism. It is timely to blow the dust off our history books, embrace the profound positive legacy of this great saint and embrace Christmas. Christmas is not just an excuse to hold an end of year party, to have a holiday, to display tinsel or to secularise the Christmas tree—the symbol of light taken from the Roman festival of light. Christmas is not about reindeers or Santa Claus; Christmas is about Christ. The true meaning of Christmas is that Jesus Christ was born, destined to suffer, die on a cross, be buried and then rise on the third day for us. May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the members of this parliament and its staff a very happy Christmas. (Time expired)1005922:55:0010059King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—All Australians have shared an affinity with the new state of East Timor and its people. In some cases that relationship dates back 50 years and is in response to the important support that the East Timorese provided to Australian troops, of whom my father was one, during the Second World War. Mostly it is, however, a more recent awareness and closeness born of observing its courageous struggle for independence. There is also pride in our own role in assisting the creation of this new nation in our region. We have watched as a friend and have assisted in a significant way that transition to nationhood. Australia's support has been multifaceted: from direct aid to our involvement in the UN led mission and, of course, the involvement of Australian military personnel in assisting the East Timorese provide internal security. I therefore think most Australians were genuinely concerned at the turn of events last week that saw up to five people killed as a result of rioting. Forging a new nation is a rare challenge and, with the background of historical strife and poverty, it was not likely to be a smooth road for the East Timorese. Nonetheless, much has been achieved and Australia, as a friend and donor, has a continued interest in assisting the process. We must always respect as paramount the democratic processes of that nation and the values which we Australians respect as the sound basis of any modern nation.It is important, however, that we understand the motivation for the events of last week if we are to be able to offer constructive advice to the UN authorities and the East Timorese government. It would be presumptuous of me, as someone who is not an expert, to draw conclusions, although it does seem to me that addressing the dire economic situation faced by most East Timorese must be a priority. Unemployment rates in East Timor have variously been estimated at between 60 and 80 per cent. Timorese who are lucky enough to hold a job generally receive a maximum of $US6 per day, although as little as $US1 per day is not uncommon. On 19 May this year, the ABC's online news service attributed to the World Bank the finding that the average per capita income in East Timor is $US0.55 per day.Timorese workers on subsistence wages endure poor working conditions and enjoy little in the way of security of tenure, superannuation, holiday pay or safety protections. These are regarded as fundamental rights for all Australians. Against this background, the Timorese witness the UN's staff, who earn more than $US95 per day—in many cases that is in addition to their regular salary. Employees of NGOs are also remunerated at levels considerably higher than the East Timorese. Whilst I do not argue that these salaries are inappropriate, it is perhaps understandable—if not founded on a logical basis—that the people of East Timor could develop resentment towards foreign workers. What is important is that UN staff ensure that they do not exacerbate that tension by being seen to be profligate. The model of General Cosgrove's management of Australian troops in East Timor is relevant in this regard.I also understand that this resentment is extending to the members of the government of East Timor, who have not always understood the depth of local feeling against the Portuguese legacy and who, while earning far more modest amounts than overseas staff, receive a remuneration that provokes jealousies. Reducing poverty and developing a sound and sustainable economic foundation must therefore be the priority of the East Timorese government and its friends like Australia. That means addressing the critical shortage of economic and social capital. Until that shortage is redressed, the dominating characteristic of East Timor will be grinding poverty.To redress that shortage of capital it seems to me, as an observer, that some of the essential elements need to include a disciplined government that does not undermine its own economy by excessive spending and an open door to foreign investment with security of title and a guarantee that nationalisation will not be on the government's agenda. Tourism, minerals, agriculture and fishing are areas of prospective foreign investment which can offer substantial employment opportunities to local people. Reducing sovereign risk will increase investment in those areas. East Timor needs a taxation and banking system that protects low-income earners and an energetic campaign of expansion of the education system at all levels. East Timor also needs a modern approach to the rights of women. I know that all Australians want to see East Timor prosper. We must never hesitate to provide assistance, both intellectual and tangible, when we are invited to do so to support the people of the world's newest nation in achieving their goals. In its first year of independent existence, we must do our best to support this recently established democracy on our doorstep. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.22:52:0010061House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Miscellaneous100611006183SBurke, Anna, MPMs Burke to ask the Speaker—(1) Were any flights chartered to transport (a) committee members, (b) committee staff or (c) other parliamentary staff to attend the hearings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration in (i) Sydney on 31 May, 2002 and (ii) Warrnambool on 6 December 2002; if so, (A) how many flights were chartered and (B) what was the cost of each chartered flight.(2) What was the freight cost of transporting necessary equipment for each hearing.(3) How many commercial airline sectors were travelled by staff of the committee and other parliamentary staff for each hearing.(4) What was the cost of each commercial airline sector travelled for each hearing.(5) What was the cost of using (a) hire cars and (b) Comcar for each hearing.(6) What was the cost of (a) overnight accommodation and (b) travel allowance for staff of the committee and other parliamentary staff for each hearing.(7) What was the cost of travel allowance paid to committee members for each hearing.1006183SBurke, Anna, MPMs Burke to ask the Speaker—(1) How many (a) meetings and (b) public hearings have been held by each House of Representatives Standing Committee in 2002.(2) What was the location of each (a) meeting and (b) public hearing of each committee referred to in part (1).Notices10061The following notices were given:HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews to present a bill for an act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, and for related purposes.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews to present a bill for an act to enhance the management of Australia's blood supply, and for related purposes.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch to present a bill for an act relating to designs, and for related purposes.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch to present a bill for an act to amend certain Acts in consequence of the repeal of the Designs Act 1906 and the enactment of the Designs Act 2002, and for related purposes.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch to present a bill for an act to amend the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997, and for related purposes.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey to present a bill for an act to amend maritime legislation, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed fitout of new leased premises for the Bureau of Meteorology at Docklands, Melbourne.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of off-base housing for Defence at Adamstown, Newcastle.Answers to Questions in Writing10062The following answers to questions were circulated:10062(Question No. 814)81410062Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 Ferguson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 20 August 2002:(1) How many (a) full time permanent staff, (b) part time permanent staff, (c) full time contract staff and (d) part time contract staff were employed by (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) agencies within the Minister's portfolio as at (A) 30 March 1996 and (B) 30 June 2002.(2) For each category of engagement referred to in part (1) and employed by (a) the Minister's Department and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, where were such persons located in (i) 30 March 1996 and (ii) 30 June 2002.10062Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The information sought 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 Australian Public Service 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.In relation to the answers provided:- `contract staff' is taken to mean `non-ongoing staff';- `full time permanent staff' is taken to mean `ongoing, full time staff';- `part time permanent staff' is taken to mean `ongoing, part time staff';- `full time contract staff' is taken to mean `non-ongoing, full time staff'; and- `part time contract staff' is taken to mean `non-ongoing, part time staff'.In answer to parts (1)(B) and (2)(ii):Table 1 shows the number of staff in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (AFFA) on 30 June 2002; andTable 2 shows the number of staff in portfolio Commonwealth Authorities, as defined in section 7 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, on 30 June 2002.Table 1 AFFA Staffing as at 30 June 2002LocationOngoingNon-ongoingFull-timePart-timeFull-timePart-timeAustralian Capital Territory122210312012New South Wales604226135Northern Territory9110Queensland4908824South Australia1341000Tasmania11000Victoria4016178Western Australia63010Total293448914429Note: These figures include staff on the AFFA payroll system working in the areas of Plant Breeders Rights Advisory Committee, National Residue Survey, Australian Plague Locust Commission, National Rural Advisory Council, Australian Landcare Council and the Dairy Adjustment Authority.Table 2 AFFA Commonwealth Authorities Staffing as at 30 June 2002NameLocationOngoingNon-ongoingFull-timePart-timeFull-timePart-timeAustralian Dairy CorporationVictoriaSouth AustraliaNew South Wales65211000Australian Fisheries Management AuthorityAustralian Capital TerritoryQueensland9121002012Australian Wine and South Australia27030Brandy CorporationUnited Kingdom4100Germany2100Cotton R&D CorporationNew South Wales8400Dairy R&D CorporationVictoria20022Fisheries R&D CorporationAustralian Capital Territory10001Forest and Wood Product R&D CorporationVictoria2050Grains R&D CorporationAustralian Capital Territory37321Western Australia1000Grape and Wine R&D CorporationSouth Australia5001Land and Water Resources R&D CorporationAustralian Capital TerritoryWestern Australia1300010131National Registration AuthorityAustralian Capital Territory1088120Western Australia1000Rural Industries R&D CorporationAustralian Capital Territory15403Victoria0001New South WalesSouth Australia00000021Sugar R&D Queensland1421CorporationTobacco R&D CorporationAustralian Capital Territory0002Wheat Export AuthorityAustralian Capital Territory5150Total420466321In addition to the above, the Dairy Adjustment Authority office in Melbourne had 19 employees at 30 June 2002. That number comprised 9 full-time ongoing and 1 part time ongoing staff seconded from the Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC) as well as 10 full-time non-ongoing staff. There were also two permanent full time staff in Canberra, who were full-time ongoing staff of AFFA and are therefore included in the first table.10063(Question No. 903 amended answer)90310063McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 September 2002:What are the current automotive tariffs imposed by countries in the APEC region in respect of (a) cars, (b) trucks and (c) parts.10064Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is set out in the following table:APEC AUTOMOTIVE TARIFFS ECONOMYAUTO TARIFFSCOMMENT(Car—Trucks—Parts)Australia(5-15%—5%—0-15%)15% tariff on cars and parts to fall to 10% in Jan 2005Current review of post-2005 tariffs. Canada(6.1 - 6.1%—0-7%)0%--USA, Mexico, ChileChile(7%—7%—7%)0%--Argen., Brazil, Canada, MexicoChina (PRC)(44-51% cars and trucks—(23% average parts)Acceded to the WTO in Dec 2001. Tariff quotas being increased by 15% per year & phased out by 1 Jan 2005. Tariffs to be phased down to 25% (cars), 20-30% (trucks) and 10% (parts average) by mid 2006. Philippines(30%—3-30%—3-20%)Vehicle tariffs not bound in WTO. Local content requirements to be phased out by mid 2003.Peru(12%—12%—12%)Hong Kong(0%—0%—0%)Indonesia(65-80%—0-45%—0-25%)Tariff on most parts is 15%High luxury taxes apply. Auto tariffs not bound in WTO. Tariff on CKD cars is 25%. Japan(0%—0%—0%)Korea(8%—0-10%—0-8%)Malaysia(140-300%—0-50%—0-80%)Vehicle tariffs not bound in WTO. Local content requirements to be phased out by the end of 2003. Vehicle import quotas. Tariff on CKD cars is 40%.Mexico(8-30%—3-23%—3-30%)0% Canada & U.S. by Jan.2004New Zealand(0%—0%—0-15% )Russia(30%—5-25%—5-30%)Singapore(0%—0%—0%)Chinese Taipei(29%—37%—2.5-42% )Acceded to WTO in Dec 2001. Tariff quotas apply until 2011. A 2,928 quota set for Australia in 2001. By 2010 tariffs to be phased down to 17.5% (cars) & 9% (parts average).Thailand(80%—5-60%—10-46%)High excise applies to carsUSA(2.5%—0-25%—0-6.5%)0% with Mex. & Canada25% applies to utilitiesVietnam(100%—60%—30-60%)Not a WTO memberSource: Various including DFAT, industry profiles on APEC web site and US Automotive Trade Policy Council. Last updated in November 2002.Cars - Data encompass all tariff lines in HS 8703.2 and 8703.3Trucks - Data from HS 8704.10064(Question No. 1008)100810064McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4FraserALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 October 2002:Has the Minister's Department made payments to the national or State and Territory branches of the (a) Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, (b) Australian Industry Group, (c) National Farmers' Federation or (d) Business Council of Australia for consultancies, training and other purposes in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98, (iii) 1998-99, (iv) 1999-2000, (v) 2000-2001, (vi) 2001-2002, and (vii) 2002-2003 to date; if so what sums and when? 10065Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:From 1996-97 to date, Defence has paid a total of $105,952 to the organisations in question. These payments mainly relate to the fees associated with training, seminar and conferences. The details of these payments by financial year and relevant organisation are provided below. Organisation Name1996-97$1997-98$1998-99$1999-00$2000-01$2001-02$2002-03$Total$Australian Chamber of Commerce1,9502,9607,0551,4951,44014,900NT Chamber of Commerce476671521,3252,98511,7694,57221,850Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce2981,0751,373Cairns Chamber of Commerce555423801,058Rockhampton Chamber of Commerce528528Queensland Chamber of Commerce2,7932,793City of Liverpool Chamber of Commerce2,8553053,160Townsville Chamber of Commerce3201,0359752,330Sub total Chamber of Commerce2,4263,6317,4053,8958,62116,0825,93247,992Business Council of Australia152035Canberra Business Council Inc211211Sub total Business Council 1520211246National Farmers' Federation (SA)1,5606001952,355Australian Industry Group (Melbourne)5,34026,16278616532,453Australian Industry Group (Nth Sydney)907907Australian Industry Group (Canberra)22,00022,000Sub total Australian Industry Group 5,34026,16222,78690716555,360Total4,0014,25112,94030,05731,40717,1996,097105,95210065(Question No. 1010)101010065McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4FraserALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 2002:Has the Minister's Department made payments to the national or State and Territory branches of the (a) Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, (b) Australian Industry Group, (c) National Farmers Federation or (d) Business Council of Australia for consultancies, training and other purposes in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98, (iii) 1998-99, (iv) 1999-2000, (v) 2000-2001, (vi) 2001-2002 and (vii) 2002-2003 to date; if so, what sums and when.10065Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade(a) Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry - (i) $29.00, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) $65.00, (v) $2,527.53, (vi) Nil, (vii) Nil;(b) Australian Industry Group - (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) $71.00, (v) $451.00, (vi) $350.00, (vii) $99.00;(c) National Farmers Federation - (i) $80,925.00, (ii) $5,416.72, (iii) $5,000.00, (iv) Nil, (v) Nil, (vi) Nil, (vii) $857.78;(d) Business Council of Australia - (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) $400.00, (v) Nil, (vi) $160.00, (vii) Nil.AusAID(a) Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry - (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) Nil, (v) Nil, (vi) Nil, (vii) Nil.;(b) Australian Industry Group - (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) Nil, (v) Nil, (vi) Nil, (vii) Nil;(c) National Farmers Federation - (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) $24,505.00, (v) $26,939.55, (vi) Nil, (vii) Nil;Business Council of Australia - (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) Nil, (v) Nil, (vi) Nil, (vii) Nil.Austrade(a) Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry - (i) $55,288.00, (ii) $54,611.00, (iii) $54671.43, (iv) $170,128.00, (v) $98,182.37, (vi) $117,015.00, (vii) Nil;(b) Australian Industry Group - (i) $618,038.00, (ii) $1,245,842.00, (iii) $624,686.23, (iv) $824,192.40, (v) $930,091.80, (vi) $846,097.44, (vii) $221,226.00;(c) National Farmers Federation - (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) Nil, (v) Nil, (vi) Nil, (vii) Nil;(d) Business Council of Australia - (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) Nil, (v) Nil, (vi) Nil, (vii) Nil.EFIC(a) Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry - (i) $65.00 (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) Nil, (v) Nil, (vi) Nil, (vii) Nil.;(b) Australian Industry Group - (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) $50.00, (iv) $190.00, (v) $605.00, (vi) $660.00, (vii) Nil;(c) National Farmers Federation - (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) Nil, (v) Nil, (vi) Nil, (vii) Nil;(d) Business Council of Australia - (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil, (iv) Nil, (v) Nil, (vi) Nil, ACIAR(a) Nil.(b) Nil(c) National Farmers Federation - (i) $5,240, (ii) $ 240, (iii) Nil, (iv) Nil, (v) Nil, (vi) Nil, (vii) Nil.(d) Nil.10066(Question No. 1025)102510066Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 17 October 2002:(1) Following his recent visit to Tripoli, Libya, is he able to say whether the Libyan Government is considering re-opening a diplomatic posting in Canberra.(2) What is the proposed site of the posting.(3) When was the last time Libya was permitted to have a diplomatic posting in Australia.(4) Has he been advised by the Department of Foreign Affairs on the principal reasons for expelling Libya; if so, what were those reasons.(5) Is he aware of reports dated 6 May 2002 from US State Department Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Mr John R. Bolton, of new Libyan programs for acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.(6) Is he aware of further reports of Libyan programs to acquire chemical and biological weapons.(7) Have these reports influenced the Australian Governments attitude to relations with Libya.(8) What is the Australian Government's justification for allowing Libya to re-establish a diplomatic mission in Australia. (9) Is the Australian Government considering opening a diplomatic post in Tripoli, Libya, following his meeting with Colonel Qadhafi's son.10067Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As the questions raised fall within the responsibility of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have consulted him on the following answers to the honourable member's questions—(1) While the Government has not received a formal request seeking agrement to Libyan representation in Australia, the Libyans have foreshadowed that they plan to seek diplomatic accreditation to Australia of an Ambassador.(2) See answer to question (1).(3) The Government suspended relations with Libya on 19 May 1987 when the Libyan People's Bureau (Embassy) in Canberra was also closed.(4) The Government took this action in view of domestic and regional concern over claims of Libyan interference in the internal affairs of Australia and countries in the South Pacific region.(5) Yes.(6) A number of institutions have published reports regarding Libya's programs of chemical and biological weapons. For example, the Monterey Institute of International Studies has produced a report on Libya's chemical weapons program.(7) Australia maintains diplomatic relations with a number of countries which are known or reported to have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, and takes appropriate opportunities to register its concerns about these programs. During my visit to Libya in July 2002, I urged Libya to help resolve WMD concerns by acceding to the Chemical Weapons Convention and refraining from acquiring longer range ballistic missiles.(8) The Government reviewed Australia's relations with Libya earlier this year, and, in light of international developments and national economic interests, decided on 17 June 2002 to resume normal diplomatic relations with Libya. The Government is satisfied that Libya is no longer actively involved in promoting terrorism. Libya has condemned the September 11 attacks in the United States, has signed all of the anti-terrorism conventions, and is starting to take appropriate counter-terrorism measures.(9) No. Libya agreed to Australia accrediting our Ambassador in Cairo. The Ambassador presented his credentials in Tripoli on 11 September 2002.10067(Question No. 1047)104710067Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 October 2002:(1) With respect to the Ministers Department and each agency for which the Minister is responsible, what is the total number of (a) male and (b) female staff.(2) In the Ministers Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and how many of each gender have elected to pay additional superannuation contributions.(3) In the Ministers Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff are members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme and how many of each gender have elected to pay (i) additional and (ii) reduced superannuation contributions.(4) In the Ministers Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff have any other form of superannuation.10067Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As at 22 October 2002 - (1) Number of Male and Female staff. DFATAusAIDEFICAustradeACIARMale12622787327921Female10483158121633(2) CSS Membership numbers:Male DFATAusAIDEFICAustradeACIARTotal Members5379568812Paying > 5%184252214Female DFATAusAIDEFICAustradeACIARTotal Members240653214Paying > 5%8323272(3) PSS Members numbers:Male DFATAusAIDEFICAustradeACIARTotal Members658180611769Paying >5%2185110602Paying < 5%1493819192Female DFATAusAIDEFICAustradeACIARTotal Members6652457318729Paying >5%22672105411Paying < 5%1546932447(4) Other Superannuation (AGEST) numbers: DFATAusAIDEFICAustradeACIARMale936320Female57558010068(Question No. 1062)106210068Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 October 2002:Further to the answer to question No. 802 (Hansard, 14 October 2002, page 7536), how many staff, including (a) ongoing full-time staff, (b) ongoing part-time staff, (c) non-ongoing full-time staff and (d) non-ongoing part-time staff were employed by his Department and agencies within his portfolio at 30 June 2002 in (i) NSW, (ii) Vic., (iii) Qld, (iv) SA, (v) WA, (vi) Tas., (vii) the NT and (viii) the ACT.10068Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:Further to question No. 802 (Hansard, 14 October 2002, page 7536), as at 30 June 2002 my portfolio employed the following numbers of staff in (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii) and (viii):DFAT Full TimeOngoingNonongoingNew South Wales4125Victoria4712Queensland2415South Australia135Western Australia204Tasmania71Northern Territory31ACT108235Total123798Part TimeOngoingNonongoingNew South Wales104Victoria90Queensland14South Australia00Western Australia32Tasmania00Northern Territory11ACT498Total7319EFIC Full TimeOngoingNonongoingNew South Wales5872Victoria12Queensland11South Australia21Western Australia21Tasmania00Northern Territory00ACT00Total6477Part TimeOngoingNonongoingNew South Wales42Victoria00Queensland00South Australia10Western Australia00Tasmania00Northern Territory00ACT00Total52AusAID Full TimeOngoingNonongoingNew South Wales02Victoria10Queensland00South Australia10Western Australia10Tasmania00Northern Territory00ACT44921Total45223Part TimeOngoingNonongoingNew South Wales00Victoria00Queensland00South Australia00Western Australia00Tasmania00Northern Territory00ACT395Total395Austrade Full TimeOngoingNonongoingNew South Wales11626Victoria549Queensland132South Australia62Western Australia93Tasmania10Northern Territory11ACT11027Total31070Part TimeOngoingNonongoingNew South Wales61Victoria21Queensland10South Australia00Western Australia10Tasmania00Northern Territory00ACT101Total203ACIAR Full TimeOngoingNonongoingACT386Total386Part TimeOngoingNonongoingACT63Total6310070(Question No. 1063)106310070Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 23 October 2002:Further to the answer to question No. 799 (Hansard, 14 October 2002, page 7535), how many staff, including (a) ongoing full-time staff, (b) ongoing part-time staff, (c) non-ongoing full-time staff and (d) non-ongoing part-time staff were employed by his Department and agencies within his portfolio at 30 June 2002 in (i) NSW, (ii) Vic., (iii) Qld, (iv) SA, (v) WA, (vi) Tas., (vii) the NT and (viii) the ACT.10070Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is the same as that given to Question No. 1062 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.10070(Question No. 1065)106510070Jackson, Sharryn, MPMs Jackson00AN2HasluckALP00 asked the Minister for Children and Youth Services, upon notice, on 23 October 2002:(1) How many citizens residing in Australia are involved in shared-care custody arrangements with ex-partners who are New Zealand citizens residing in New Zealand.(2) In how many cases are both parents classified as low-income earners.(3) Under the current agreement between Australia and New Zealand, in cases in which both parents are classified as low-income earners and each parent has equal custody of the children, what percentage of (a) Australian parents are required to make child support payments to the New Zealand parent and (b) New Zealand parents are required to make child support payments to the Australian parent. (4) Has his attention been drawn to my representations to him concerning the Child Support Agreement between Australia and New Zealand as it relates to a Hasluck constituent, Mr Deon Roberts; if not, why not.(5) Is there an anomaly in this case, whereby Mr Roberts is required to pay child maintenance to his ex-partner in New Zealand for his daughter, even though he is caring for his son in Australia; if not, why not.(6) Is this Agreement which requires Mr Roberts to pay child maintenance to his ex-partner because he resides in Australia, anomalous and requiring urgent attention; if not, why not.(7) What steps has he taken to address the anomaly and when will it be removed.10071Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Child Support Agency (CSA) does not have the ability to determine the specific number of Australian parents who are in shared-care custody arrangements with ex-partners who are New Zealand citizens residing in New Zealand. It would be fair to say, however, that the number of these clients would be extremely small, as only 1.9% of all Australian CSA Collect cases are where the parents both provide equal care for one or more children of the relationship. It would be reasonable to assume that less than 10 cases would fall into this category.(2) Not known. The CSA does not separately record on any of its databases the range of incomes for New Zealand cases transmitted to Australia.(3) (a) The CSA does not record this information, however, less than 10 cases would fall into this category. (b) Nil.(4) I have responded in writing to a letter dated 17 June 2002 in response to these issues. A response to a letter dated 15 October is currently under preparation.(5) and (6) The Australian and New Zealand Child Support Schemes are similar but not identical. The determination of child support payable is undertaken by the country in which the parent caring for the child resides. Where parents are both caring for one or more children of the relationship, this produces a different outcome than would be the case if both parents lived in either Australia or New Zealand.An administrative remedy is available to parents where the assessment results in an unjust or inequitable outcome. Either parent can apply to the Australian Child Support Agency to increase or decrease the Australian child support assessment to take account of special circumstances.(7) The administrative remedy described in (5) and (6) above is already available to parents, therefore further steps are not necessary.10071(Question No. 1070)107010071Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 2002:(1) What is the current level of expenditure on defence in Australia expressed (a) as a proportion of gross domestic product and (b) in real dollar terms.(2) How many members are there in the (a) army, (b) navy and (c) airforce arms of the Australian Defence Force.(3) What are the major equipment expenditures due to be undertaken over the next decade and why is it necessary to undertake this expenditure.10071Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) and (b) The current level of expenditure on defence, based on the departmental appropriations and equity funding, excluding the capital use charge, is $14,270m. This equates to 1.9% of the gross domestic product. (2) This information is contained in Chapter Five - People Matter of the 2001-2002 Defence Annual Report.(3) The largest Defence Capability Plan projects for which expenditure is planned over the next decade include:· AIR 6000 Phases 1A and 1B, New Aerospace Combat Capability Acquisition. The estimated expenditure of Phase 1A is more than $6000 million and the estimated expenditure of Phase 1B is $4500-$6000 million. Another phase of AIR 6000 is planned beyond the decade.· SEA 4000 Maritime Air Warfare Capability. Estimated expenditure is $3500-$4500 million.· AIR 5077 Phase 3 Airborne Early Warning And Control System. Planned expenditure $3,455 million.· AIR 5402 Phase 1 ADF Air Refuelling Capability. Estimated expenditure is $1500 million- $2000 million.· AIR 87 Phase 2 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters. Planned expenditure is $1,858 million.· AIR 5276 Phase R AP-3C Orion Replacement/Remanufacture. Estimated expenditure is in excess of $1500 million.· AIR 5376 Phases 2.2 and 2.3 FA/18 Hornet Upgrade. Combined estimated expenditure for both sub-phases is $1,524 million.· LAND 121 Phase 3 Overlander - Field Vehicle Fleet Replacements. Estimated expenditure is in excess of $1500 million.The classified 10-year Defence Capability Plan was developed in conjunction with the Defence 2000 White Paper to provide the Defence Force with clear, long-term goals for the development of our armed forces and the funding needed to achieve those goals. The Defence 2000 White Paper provides the justification for the equipment expenditure outlined in the Defence Capability Plan. Defence 2000 emphasises the need for a professional, well-equipped force that is available for operations at short notice, and one that can be sustained on deployment over extended periods; and outlines capability goals for Defence's land, air, maritime, strike and information capabilities. The Defence Capability Plan is reviewed and updated annually to take account of changes in Australia's strategic circumstances, new technologies and changed priorities. The current review of the Defence Capability Plan is being informed by the 2002 Annual Strategic Review.10072(Question No. 1086)108610072McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Prime Minister, 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.10072Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised that my department and its employees have reached agreement on a range of initiatives to enable staff to balance their work and personal responsibilities. These initiatives are detailed in the department's Certified Agreement and in individual Australian Workplace Agreements and include:· part-time employment under short or long term arrangements;· provision of a nursing mothers' room;· provision of computing assistance to enable employees to work from home when caring for dependents on a short term basis;· home based work arrangements on either a permanent or long term temporary basis;· purchased leave which is funded by salary adjustments spread evenly over a calendar year;· parental leave without pay to enable an employee to care for his or her child following the birth or adoption of the child;· personal leave can be used to care for a family member during illness or injury or to meet family responsibilities of an unscheduled nature where no accrued annual leave is available; · miscellaneous leave with pay or without pay to cover a range of personal or work related situations; and· flextime and time off in lieu provisions.10073(Question No. 1091)109110073McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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.10073McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Department has in place several policies and practices which assist employees to balance work and family responsibilities. Such policies and practices include:· Part-time work guidelines;· Job share guidelines;· Home-based work guidelines;· Provision for additional purchased Planned leave;· Access to Unplanned leave accrual for carers purposes;· Capacity for the extension of maternity leave from 12 to 24 weeks;· Subsidisation of costs associated with vacation child care;· Provision for reimbursement of reasonable costs in relation to additional family care arrangement in cases of exceptional circumstances eg. When an employee is required to travel on short notice;· Flexible working hours;· Christmas/New Year shutdown; and · Proposal under the Department's new Certified Agreement for the development of a framework for the management of working hours.10073(Question No. 1092)109210073McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 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.10073Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and related portfolio agencies have each implemented some or all of the following policies and practices to assist employees balance work and family responsibilities:· the `working smarter' campaign, which encourages a sense of balance between work and private life;· flexible working hours;· job-sharing;· part-time work;· home-based work;· appropriate leave provisions (recreation leave, maternity leave, parental leave, personal carer's leave, leave in the interests of the Commonwealth, long service leave, study leave, leave without pay, leave at half pay); · study assistance program · priority access for DFAT employees to on-site work-based child care or an on-site kids-carer's room;· salary packaging for child care;· Family Care Link or the Family Welfare Network;· out-placement service;· spouse employment register;· spouse study assistance;· pre-posting and return-to-Australia workshops; · relocation assistance. 10074(Question No. 1104)110410074McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay4I4WatsonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 12 November 2002:Are Members allowed to use their postage entitlement to circulate reply paid petitions outside their own electorate.10074Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:In the absence of details of any particular case it is not possible to provide definitive advice.The Remuneration Tribunal provision in relation to the Communications Allowance is as follows:Remuneration Tribunal Determination 26 of 1998, Clause 10.3 states: `...a senator or member shall be entitled to use commercial services for the distribution of letters, newsletters and parcels and electronic services (including establishment and maintenance of web sites) at Commonwealth expense in relation to parliamentary or electorate (but not Party) business...'The Remuneration Tribunal's capacity to determine the postage entitlements of Parliamentarians for parliamentary and electorate business derives from s.7(1) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 which requires it to determine the allowances to be paid at official expense `...by reason of their membership of the Parliament or by reason of their holding particular offices, or performing particular functions in, or in relation to the Parliament or either House of the Parliament.'The Tribunal in 1997 when asked what constitutes parliamentary and electorate business advised as follows:`The Tribunal considered the question of defining these concepts during the course of its annual review. It has decided, however, that it would be inappropriate (indeed improper) for it to define them to exclusion. Its position on this question essentially revolves around the due reticence which all in the executive arm of government must have that they do not impede the elected arm in the exercise of its function.'